Extremely Disturbing???

I find it hilarious that sdkid thinks it's "extremely disturbing" that conservative groups of people were being targeted.

I thought people that point out when they've been targeted have a "persecution complex".

BladeRunner wrote:

I find it hilarious that sdkid thinks it's "extremely disturbing" that conservative groups of people were being targeted.

I thought people that point out when they've been targeted have a "persecution complex".

The irony is so thick I need a shovel to move it out of the way. Maybe the Teaparty group could just respond to the IRS like Sdkid and say FU you're not a victim.

Sorry..forgot to add the post for the GPLV Challenged among us ("banned" group of conservatives) here.....

Clicker:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/10/following-tea-party-complaints-irs-admits-mistakes/


Quote<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Any
applications that were incomplete, lacked consistent information, or
indicated a group would be involved with some type of advocacy, were
filed into a certain group for further review.

However,
approximately 75 of the 300 groups that were filed for further review
were simply filed because they had the names "tea party" and "patriot,"
Lerner said.</blockquote>
I
hope this makes some of the tea party supporters more opposed to
privacy infringements in law. It will be interesting to see how this
develops in the public realm; I find this much more of an issue than
anything regarding Libya.

Clicker:

Quote from: Platinumstorm on May 12, 2013, 03:54:04 PM<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/10/following-tea-party-complaints-irs-admits-mistakes/
I
hope this makes some of the tea party supporters more opposed to
privacy infringements in law. It will be interesting to see how this
develops in the public realm; I find this much more of an issue than
anything regarding Libya.
</blockquote>Most
likely more of an issue due to Hillary not being involved, and
diverting attn from Libya, right? The lefties just keep the House tied
up in knots investigating all the crime out there in the liberal
utopia. Is that a plan or what?

sdkid:

Quote from: Clicker on May 12, 2013, 05:47:24 PM<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Most
likely more of an issue due to Hillary not being involved, and
diverting attn from Libya, right? The lefties just keep the House tied
up in knots investigating all the crime out there in the liberal
utopia. Is that a plan or what?
</blockquote>
meh....

Both
of these stories deserve attention. If the IRS acted specifically at
the direction of the administration, it is extremely disturbing.

JT:

Quote from: sdkid on May 12, 2013, 06:50:18 PM<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">meh....

Both
of these stories deserve attention. If the IRS acted specifically at
the direction of the administration, it is extremely disturbing.
</blockquote>
The IRS should be totally non-partisan. This story does deserve the attention it is getting.

BladeRunner wrote:Sorry..forgot to add the post for the GPLV Challenged among us ("banned" group of conservatives) here.....

Clicker:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/10/following-tea-party-complaints-irs-admits-mistakes/


Quote<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Any
applications that were incomplete, lacked consistent information, or
indicated a group would be involved with some type of advocacy, were
filed into a certain group for further review.

However,
approximately 75 of the 300 groups that were filed for further review
were simply filed because they had the names "tea party" and "patriot,"
Lerner said.</blockquote>
I
hope this makes some of the tea party supporters more opposed to
privacy infringements in law. It will be interesting to see how this
develops in the public realm; I find this much more of an issue than
anything regarding Libya.

Clicker:

Quote from: Platinumstorm on May 12, 2013, 03:54:04 PM<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/10/following-tea-party-complaints-irs-admits-mistakes/
I
hope this makes some of the tea party supporters more opposed to
privacy infringements in law. It will be interesting to see how this
develops in the public realm; I find this much more of an issue than
anything regarding Libya.
</blockquote>Most
likely more of an issue due to Hillary not being involved, and
diverting attn from Libya, right? The lefties just keep the House tied
up in knots investigating all the crime out there in the liberal
utopia. Is that a plan or what?

sdkid:

Quote from: Clicker on May 12, 2013, 05:47:24 PM<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Most
likely more of an issue due to Hillary not being involved, and
diverting attn from Libya, right? The lefties just keep the House tied
up in knots investigating all the crime out there in the liberal
utopia. Is that a plan or what?
</blockquote>
meh....

Both
of these stories deserve attention. If the IRS acted specifically at
the direction of the administration, it is extremely disturbing.

JT:

Quote from: sdkid on May 12, 2013, 06:50:18 PM<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">meh....

Both
of these stories deserve attention. If the IRS acted specifically at
the direction of the administration, it is extremely disturbing.
</blockquote>
The IRS should be totally non-partisan. This story does deserve the attention it is getting.

I'm glad we have the Thornton to tell us it is or isn't worthy getting attention. I also love how he is there to defend the main stream media all the time. remember the Gosnell threads? One of the first things he said was the media is covering it. ANd the was before anyone even brought up the fact that the media wasn't covering it. Lol he is asuch a tool.

pse1124 wrote:
I'm glad we have the Thornton to tell us it is or isn't worthy getting attention. I also love how he is there to defend the main stream media all the time. remember the Gosnell threads? One of the first things he said was the media is covering it. ANd the was before anyone even brought up the fact that the media wasn't covering it. Lol he is asuch a tool.

Well he IS an authority on the media.

That would be "Thornton is a F^&*@ng tool".

Of course Thornton can go off topic any time he wants and sdkid has his back:

"So why should any group receive special tax status? I wonder why any group, churches, hospitals, ect.... think they should be "tax exempt"? Perhaps all organizations should be subject to the same tax requirements?"

I suspect Thornton has me on ignore so I doubt he saw my reply:

""That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create..."
John Marshall - McCulloch v. Maryland.

While Marshall is talking specifically about the power of one government entity to tax another, it also applies in principle to Constitutional rights. Should the government have the right to tax Religion? Political speech? Free speech? Non-profits that take it upon themselves to provide for society? It evens applies to for profit companies for at some point when taxes grow too onerous, too toxic then they have no choice but to close."

Of course Thornton thinks that if Liberal groups receive the same scrutiny as Conservative groups then that balances the scales. More dumbass reasoning from Thornton's Shallow Pool of Intelligence. Malfeasance is malfeasance no matter which way you slice it Thornton. Dumbass.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:That would be "Thornton is a F^&*@ng tool".

Of course Thornton can go off topic any time he wants and sdkid has his back:

"So why should any group receive special tax status? I wonder why any group, churches, hospitals, ect.... think they should be "tax exempt"? Perhaps all organizations should be subject to the same tax requirements?"

I suspect Thornton has me on ignore so I doubt he saw my reply:

""That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create..."
John Marshall - McCulloch v. Maryland.

While Marshall is talking specifically about the power of one government entity to tax another, it also applies in principle to Constitutional rights. Should the government have the right to tax Religion? Political speech? Free speech? Non-profits that take it upon themselves to provide for society? It evens applies to for profit companies for at some point when taxes grow too onerous, too toxic then they have no choice but to close."

Of course Thornton thinks that if Liberal groups receive the same scrutiny as Conservative groups then that balances the scales. More dumbass reasoning from Thornton's Shallow Pool of Intelligence. Malfeasance is malfeasance no matter which way you slice it Thornton. Dumbass.

IMO, Liberal groups SHOULD receive the same scrutiny as Conservative groups.
Why do you think that is "dumbass reasoning" ? Do you think one group should receive more or less scrutiny? Why? Which group?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:That would be "Thornton is a F^&*@ng tool".

Of course Thornton can go off topic any time he wants and sdkid has his back:

"So why should any group receive special tax status? I wonder why any group, churches, hospitals, ect.... think they should be "tax exempt"? Perhaps all organizations should be subject to the same tax requirements?"

I suspect Thornton has me on ignore so I doubt he saw my reply:

""That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create..."
John Marshall - McCulloch v. Maryland.

While Marshall is talking specifically about the power of one government entity to tax another, it also applies in principle to Constitutional rights. Should the government have the right to tax Religion? Political speech? Free speech? Non-profits that take it upon themselves to provide for society? It evens applies to for profit companies for at some point when taxes grow too onerous, too toxic then they have no choice but to close."

Of course Thornton thinks that if Liberal groups receive the same scrutiny as Conservative groups then that balances the scales. More dumbass reasoning from Thornton's Shallow Pool of Intelligence. Malfeasance is malfeasance no matter which way you slice it Thornton. Dumbass.

IMO, Liberal groups SHOULD receive the same scrutiny as Conservative groups.
Why do you think that is "dumbass reasoning" ? Do you think one group should receive more or less scrutiny? Why? Which group?

Why should ANY political speech, liberal, conservative, Babylonian, etc, come under the scrutiny of the IRS? Here, read the first part of the John Marshall quote since it appears you missed it, "That the power to tax involves the power to destroy;..." Political speech is sacrosanct in this Republic. The 1st Amendment secures that right.

Nixon was excoriated for his enemies list, for using the IRS to badger and punish his political enemies and rightfully so. The fact that this should be done equally to all political views doesn't make it right. Two wrongs don't make it right. It is fallacious reasoning because it is irrelevant whether or not wrong things are done to all parties. The question is not about who is getting the shaft or even about all getting the shaft; the question is about the propriety or rightness of the thing being done in the first place.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:That would be "Thornton is a F^&*@ng tool".

Of course Thornton can go off topic any time he wants and sdkid has his back:

"So why should any group receive special tax status? I wonder why any group, churches, hospitals, ect.... think they should be "tax exempt"? Perhaps all organizations should be subject to the same tax requirements?"

I suspect Thornton has me on ignore so I doubt he saw my reply:

""That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create..."
John Marshall - McCulloch v. Maryland.

While Marshall is talking specifically about the power of one government entity to tax another, it also applies in principle to Constitutional rights. Should the government have the right to tax Religion? Political speech? Free speech? Non-profits that take it upon themselves to provide for society? It evens applies to for profit companies for at some point when taxes grow too onerous, too toxic then they have no choice but to close."

Of course Thornton thinks that if Liberal groups receive the same scrutiny as Conservative groups then that balances the scales. More dumbass reasoning from Thornton's Shallow Pool of Intelligence. Malfeasance is malfeasance no matter which way you slice it Thornton. Dumbass.

IMO, Liberal groups SHOULD receive the same scrutiny as Conservative groups.
Why do you think that is "dumbass reasoning" ? Do you think one group should receive more or less scrutiny? Why? Which group?

Why should ANY political speech, liberal, conservative, Babylonian, etc, come under the scrutiny of the IRS?

Any and all organizations (political or not) come under scrutiny of the IRS when they apply for tax-exempt status. That's the law. None are required to apply, though.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:That would be "Thornton is a F^&*@ng tool".

Of course Thornton can go off topic any time he wants and sdkid has his back:

"So why should any group receive special tax status? I wonder why any group, churches, hospitals, ect.... think they should be "tax exempt"? Perhaps all organizations should be subject to the same tax requirements?"

I suspect Thornton has me on ignore so I doubt he saw my reply:

""That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create..."
John Marshall - McCulloch v. Maryland.

While Marshall is talking specifically about the power of one government entity to tax another, it also applies in principle to Constitutional rights. Should the government have the right to tax Religion? Political speech? Free speech? Non-profits that take it upon themselves to provide for society? It evens applies to for profit companies for at some point when taxes grow too onerous, too toxic then they have no choice but to close."

Of course Thornton thinks that if Liberal groups receive the same scrutiny as Conservative groups then that balances the scales. More dumbass reasoning from Thornton's Shallow Pool of Intelligence. Malfeasance is malfeasance no matter which way you slice it Thornton. Dumbass.

IMO, Liberal groups SHOULD receive the same scrutiny as Conservative groups.
Why do you think that is "dumbass reasoning" ? Do you think one group should receive more or less scrutiny? Why? Which group?

Why should ANY political speech, liberal, conservative, Babylonian, etc, come under the scrutiny of the IRS? Here, read the first part of the John Marshall quote since it appears you missed it, "That the power to tax involves the power to destroy;..." Political speech is sacrosanct in this Republic. The 1st Amendment secures that right.

Nixon was excoriated for his enemies list, for using the IRS to badger and punish his political enemies and rightfully so. The fact that this should be done equally to all political views doesn't make it right. Two wrongs don't make it right. It is fallacious reasoning because it is irrelevant whether or not wrong things are done to all parties. The question is not about who is getting the shaft or even about all getting the shaft; the question is about the propriety or rightness of the thing being done in the first place.

This is truth!!

BladeRunner wrote:

pse1124 wrote:
I'm glad we have the Thornton to tell us it is or isn't worthy getting attention. I also love how he is there to defend the main stream media all the time. remember the Gosnell threads? One of the first things he said was the media is covering it. ANd the was before anyone even brought up the fact that the media wasn't covering it. Lol he is asuch a tool.

Well he IS an authority on the media.

Well, he's an authority on everything.

As for SD Girly Kid, he doesn't deserve having such an august avitar. Later, I'll show some that are more appropiate for SD Girly Kid. Let's have a vote and suggest the best appropriate to [s]him.

sodaknomad wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

pse1124 wrote:
I'm glad we have the Thornton to tell us it is or isn't worthy getting attention. I also love how he is there to defend the main stream media all the time. remember the Gosnell threads? One of the first things he said was the media is covering it. ANd the was before anyone even brought up the fact that the media wasn't covering it. Lol he is asuch a tool.

Well he IS an authority on the media.

Well, he's an authority on everything.

As for SD Girly Kid, he doesn't deserve having such an august avitar. Later, I'll show some that are more appropiate for SD Girly Kid. Let's have a vote and suggest the best appropriate to [s]him.

How about one of him squatting to take a pee.