IRS inappropriately targets Tea Party, White House blames Bush

[Jon Miller]

I am confused by your accusation that the President has been poisoning discourse.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Maybe the Tea Parties heavy anti-IRS discourse of the last ~5 years has resulted in some parts of the IRS being anti-Tea Party?

JM

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I am confused by your accusation that the President has been poisoning discourse.

JM

Whats confusing?

[Jon Miller]

I remember accusations and declarations that he was a communist, a socialist, non-american, a fascist, etc, etc, etc... before he even became president.

The president being accused as the one who has poisoned discourse is laughable.

JM
(It wouldn't be laughable to say that he responded. But to say it is his fault. Ha.)

[Jon Miller]

I remember accusations and declarations that he was a communist, a socialist, non-american, a fascist, etc, etc, etc... before he even became president.

The president being accused as the one who has poisoned discourse is laughable.

JM
(It wouldn't be laughable to say that he responded. But to say it is his fault. Ha.)

[The Mad Monk]

Those were some busy low level employees weren't they TMM.

Why yes, yes they were.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I remember accusations and declarations that he was a communist, a socialist, non-american, a fascist, etc, etc, etc... before he even became president.

So? Every other candidate/President etc. never had anything bad said about them. Really?

JM
(It wouldn't be laughable to say that he responded. But to say it is his fault. Ha.)

Yes, he chose to repond where no other President in my memory ever attempted to paint the opposition as 'the enemy' in public.

Oops there was one... Nixon but he used to say it behind closed doors but that eventually got published.

[DinoDoc]

Why yes, yes they were.

I wish my job allowed me that kind of free and apparently unsupervised time.

[DinoDoc]

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

[PLATO]

Honestly, if there was any evidence or the suggestion of evidence, I would be all in favor of a serious (independent, whole 9 yards) probe of the administration.

Not only that, but it would make me against them on a general level. I don't think much of politicians.

But right now it is just baseless bias.

JM

I don't think we know what it is yet. I am just saying that there continues to be so much smoke coming from this administration that there well could be fire. Maybe not, but why are so against looking?

I hope there is nothing...I truly do. But I want to know. We don't learn by not looking.

In fact, I would be for a permanent non partisan watchdog organization to always be investigating both Presidents and Legislators.

However, when there are this many allegations of cover-ups and abuses of power, the American people have the right to know if they are true or not. Simply saying "oh they are baseless" does not make them go away for either side.

[PLATO]

Interesting stuff from Nixon's articles of impeachment. This is just one item of many...Nixon was pathetic.

This one though is very telling of how misuse of the IRS can come back on a President. NOT saying that this applies to the Prez, but if he did misuse the IRS, then here is some precedent:

Article 2

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:
1.He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

bolding is mine.

Full articles of Nixon's near impeachment are here (will make you realize what a scumbag he was):

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

[Jon Miller]

You need a reason to investigate someone.

Not just 'because angry right wingers who have been trying to make Obama be a failure for ~5 years' want Obama to have done something wrong.

There are no accusations based on any evidence or appearance of evidence. When there is, then an investigation into Obama/his administration is justified.

Investigating the IRS makes sense. That is not (or should not be) investigating the president or the administration.

JM
(And if the president or the administration is at fault for the IRS business, then investigating the IRS would provide some evidence or appearance of evidence for that.)

[Jon Miller]

You need a reason to investigate someone.

Not just 'because angry right wingers who have been trying to make Obama be a failure for ~5 years' want Obama to have done something wrong.

There are no accusations based on any evidence or appearance of evidence. When there is, then an investigation into Obama/his administration is justified.

Investigating the IRS makes sense. That is not (or should not be) investigating the president or the administration.

JM
(And if the president or the administration is at fault for the IRS business, then investigating the IRS would provide some evidence or appearance of evidence for that.)

[PLATO]

You need a reason to investigate someone.

Not just 'because angry right wingers who have been trying to make Obama be a failure for ~5 years' want Obama to have done something wrong.

There are no accusations based on any evidence or appearance of evidence. When there is, then an investigation into Obama/his administration is justified.

Investigating the IRS makes sense. That is not (or should not be) investigating the president or the administration.

JM
(And if the president or the administration is at fault for the IRS business, then investigating the IRS would provide some evidence or appearance of evidence for that.)

I, along with a lot of others, believe there is a reason to investigate. Starting with the IRS is cool by me. I am not advocating a witch hunt. I am merely stating that there are a lot of questions that surround the way this administration does business. Looking into that would be good for BOTH sides as we can get a resolution (unless of course one side IS guilty). But I would have no issue with starting with the IRS.

[DaShi]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]174211[/ATTACH]