Mr. Markle and Seaoat agree on one universal truth...........

othershoe1030 wrote:While few are defending the Internal Revenue Service for targeting some 300 conservative groups, there are two critical pieces of context missing from the conventional wisdom on the “scandal.” First, at least from what we know so far, the groups were not targeted in a political vendetta — but rather were executing a makeshift enforcement test (an ugly one, mind you) for IRS employees tasked with separating political groups not allowed to claim tax-exempt status, from bona fide social welfare organizations. Employees are given almost zero official guidance on how to do that, so they went after Tea Party groups because those seemed like they might be political. Keep in mind, the commissioner of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.

The second is that while this is the first time this kind of thing has become a national scandal, it’s not the first time such activity has occurred.

“I wish there was more GOP interest when I raised the same issue during the Bush administration, where they audited a progressive church in my district in what look liked a very selective way,” California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on MSNBC Monday. “I found only one Republican, [North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones], that would join me in calling for an investigation during the Bush administration. I’m glad now that the GOP has found interest in this issue and it ought to be a bipartisan concern.”

The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/

2seaoat wrote:It is historic........there is even some rumors that even in the Middle East there is consensus.........Dreams has done it again........in her attempt to try to explain a legal concept she was challenged by Chrissy, which resulted in another stellar example of legally blonde:

Dumbass, it has to be race,sex,religion,disability etc to be legal discrimination. No political entities.

Chrissy......you are most certainly correct. Dreams thinks in her legally blonde permanent condition that statutory rules concerning discrimination are the only rules. In the United States we have constitutional rights which are guaranteed under the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Due process of law requires equal protection under those laws. If in fact a political entity is denied its due process of the law under the constitution, that discrimination will fail under the equal protection clauses of those amendments, and independent of any statutory interpretations, the courts will find that if the IRS was discriminating against Conservative political groups, that in fact they are in violation of the law because of those discriminatory practices.

Chrissy, please be patient with Dreams instead of making crude and rude remarks. What she lacks in legal understanding, she more than makes up with her borderline tendencies, and you do not help that by reacting to her condition. You were correct, and she was as usual.......legally blonde.....quite harmless in her ignorance and certainly not worth you swearing at her, which sadly makes you look like the goofy one.

That's why you're an idiot. Tax audits don't fall under discrimination under the legal definitions.

Dreams calling Chrissy an idiot and telling her she does not know "legal definitions"......priceless!

The best part is Mr. Markle having to admit total agreement that Dreams is legally blonde:

2seaoat, PLEASE do not take this personal but I agree with you 100% in you entire post. I hope that doesn't cause you to panic or question your beliefs.

2seaoat wrote:The 14th amendment protects an individuals right not a group of political parties.

So labor unions, environmental groups, and the local girl scouts do not have protections from our constitution regarding equal protection of the law because they are in a group? Is this really your argument? This is sadly entertaining........it is a tell on how sadistic I have become......Dreams, there is always time to go back to school and learn some things.......there is no shame in picking up a course, or even going to a seminar which deals with the constitution, but where you are getting these wild ideas......it is like watching Art Linkletter talk with kids.......Dreams says the darndest things........and I am probably the only one who is being amused.......the rest of the forums probably equates this with fingernails on a blackboard.

othershoe1030 wrote:While few are defending the Internal Revenue Service for targeting some 300 conservative groups, there are two critical pieces of context missing from the conventional wisdom on the “scandal.” First, at least from what we know so far, the groups were not targeted in a political vendetta — but rather were executing a makeshift enforcement test (an ugly one, mind you) for IRS employees tasked with separating political groups not allowed to claim tax-exempt status, from bona fide social welfare organizations. Employees are given almost zero official guidance on how to do that, so they went after Tea Party groups because those seemed like they might be political. Keep in mind, the commissioner of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.

The second is that while this is the first time this kind of thing has become a national scandal, it’s not the first time such activity has occurred.

“I wish there was more GOP interest when I raised the same issue during the Bush administration, where they audited a progressive church in my district in what look liked a very selective way,” California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on MSNBC Monday. “I found only one Republican, [North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones], that would join me in calling for an investigation during the Bush administration. I’m glad now that the GOP has found interest in this issue and it ought to be a bipartisan concern.”

The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/

2seaoat wrote:What I see is self-described sadistic behavior on your part, Seaoat. I don't find it amusing, nor do I appreciate your "legally blond" remarks, which smack of chauvinism. How does your wife stand you?



Smack of chauvinism........really. We are talking about Reese Witherspoon and her famous staring role was legally blonde, and we have Dreams pretending that she understands rudimentary principles which deal with how our legal system works, and she posts utter nonsense repeatedly, and you think I am smacking of chauvinism........if chauvinism is a battle against ignorance I plead guilty, if I am here to "amuse" you........well what I have being doing is hardly amusing because it requires tenacity to extinguish misinformation and ignorance, however as to the sadistic part......complete agreement......I actually enjoy taking Chrissy's bully and exposing her for what she is not............a person who takes bits and pieces of information and attacks Chrissy and calls her names when she does not even have a cursory understanding of the subject matter.......guilty.

Red Kneckerson wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:While few are defending the Internal Revenue Service for targeting some 300 conservative groups, there are two critical pieces of context missing from the conventional wisdom on the “scandal.” First, at least from what we know so far, the groups were not targeted in a political vendetta — but rather were executing a makeshift enforcement test (an ugly one, mind you) for IRS employees tasked with separating political groups not allowed to claim tax-exempt status, from bona fide social welfare organizations. Employees are given almost zero official guidance on how to do that, so they went after Tea Party groups because those seemed like they might be political. Keep in mind, the commissioner of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.

The second is that while this is the first time this kind of thing has become a national scandal, it’s not the first time such activity has occurred.

“I wish there was more GOP interest when I raised the same issue during the Bush administration, where they audited a progressive church in my district in what look liked a very selective way,” California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on MSNBC Monday. “I found only one Republican, [North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones], that would join me in calling for an investigation during the Bush administration. I’m glad now that the GOP has found interest in this issue and it ought to be a bipartisan concern.”

The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/

........................................

I just finished reading that piece and was about to start a new thread.


None of the CLSTFKRS on this forum cared even a whit about the IRS when it was doing it's real job and harassing lib'ruls.


Oh, the humanity.

NaNook wrote:

Red Kneckerson wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:While few are defending the Internal Revenue Service for targeting some 300 conservative groups, there are two critical pieces of context missing from the conventional wisdom on the “scandal.” First, at least from what we know so far, the groups were not targeted in a political vendetta — but rather were executing a makeshift enforcement test (an ugly one, mind you) for IRS employees tasked with separating political groups not allowed to claim tax-exempt status, from bona fide social welfare organizations. Employees are given almost zero official guidance on how to do that, so they went after Tea Party groups because those seemed like they might be political. Keep in mind, the commissioner of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.

The second is that while this is the first time this kind of thing has become a national scandal, it’s not the first time such activity has occurred.

“I wish there was more GOP interest when I raised the same issue during the Bush administration, where they audited a progressive church in my district in what look liked a very selective way,” California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on MSNBC Monday. “I found only one Republican, [North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones], that would join me in calling for an investigation during the Bush administration. I’m glad now that the GOP has found interest in this issue and it ought to be a bipartisan concern.”

The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/

........................................

I just finished reading that piece and was about to start a new thread.


None of the CLSTFKRS on this forum cared even a whit about the IRS when it was doing it's real job and harassing lib'ruls.


Oh, the humanity.

Someone in the IRS had the presence of mind to copy and keep letters from Democratic Senators. They requested investigations into tax-exempt conservative groups. The Democratic Senators issued a threat, either investigate or appear before a Senate Hearing. It's going to get interesting........

2seaoat wrote: I think you'll find that Dreams has a much firmer grasp on things than her "victim".

Actually Chrissy was right and Dreams was not right on the violation. The Premise of the movie legally blonde is how some people attempt to pretend.....it most certainly is the perfect shoe for Dreams......She told me that she has no problem with me playing hardball with her.........now if everybody thinks I am being a bully, I will pull back, and have done that when it was clear I was hurtful to someone, but she likes hardball and laughs off that anything is say matters, so I am going to agree with her when she posts something intelligent and I am going to call her out when she makes a mistake and tries to tell people something foolish. I love it when people slam me.....so if you want to whack me and if I persist in being a fool........take me down.

2seaoat wrote:it's not a protected class,Seaoat and you know it.The 14th amendment protects an individuals right not a group of political parties. It is a civil remedy not an illegal act.

Dreams you simply do not understand the constitution. A protected class has a higher standard of scrutiny. A governmental agency which impacts a protected class must meet the compelling state interest test. This is a higher standard, but even if a political group is not in a protected class, the government must still meet the rational basis test for their classification system to not be in violation of the equal protection clause, and if that non protected class is discriminated and the government's classification does not meet that rational basis test, the agency will be found to be in violation of the United States Constitution under the 5th and 14th amendments and the non protected class will still have a remedy.

Now your second sentence in your post is not comprehensible. I hate to try to figure out what you are thinking, but if you are suggesting a violation of the law by the government is not illegal, you are incorrect. The court reviewing the classification will make a declaration that the classification does not meet the standard and is a violation of the law. Now in this plasma of confused concepts you are suggesting that an illegal act can only rise to the level of a criminal charge, you are simply incorrect in your terms. No one is suggesting that the rational basis theory when applied to the equal protection clause results in criminal charges. It does not. However, the AG office should in fact be reviewing these decisions to see if any criminal conduct was involved. I am not suggesting there was, but an independent review by the AG is necessary.

I think you owe Chrissy an apology. She may not have been entirely articulate in how the standards are applied which she even admitted, but her conclusion was dead cinch correct.

Floridatexan wrote:

2seaoat wrote:What I see is self-described sadistic behavior on your part, Seaoat. I don't find it amusing, nor do I appreciate your "legally blond" remarks, which smack of chauvinism. How does your wife stand you?



Smack of chauvinism........really. We are talking about Reese Witherspoon and her famous staring role was legally blonde, and we have Dreams pretending that she understands rudimentary principles which deal with how our legal system works, and she posts utter nonsense repeatedly, and you think I am smacking of chauvinism........if chauvinism is a battle against ignorance I plead guilty, if I am here to "amuse" you........well what I have being doing is hardly amusing because it requires tenacity to extinguish misinformation and ignorance, however as to the sadistic part......complete agreement......I actually enjoy taking Chrissy's bully and exposing her for what she is not............a person who takes bits and pieces of information and attacks Chrissy and calls her names when she does not even have a cursory understanding of the subject matter.......guilty.

You are using the blond thingy as a cudgel to attack her credibility. You do something along those lines every time someone disagrees with you, but in this case, you've gone too far. Chrissy is not on my good side either, for very valid reasons...like calling me unAmerican...for of all things, saying the American Dream is dead. I think you'll find that Dreams has a much firmer grasp on things than her "victim".

Floridatexan wrote:
You are using the blond thingy as a cudgel to attack her credibility. You do something along those lines every time someone disagrees with you, but in this case, you've gone too far. Chrissy is not on my good side either, for very valid reasons...like calling me unAmerican...for of all things, saying the American Dream is dead. I think you'll find that Dreams has a much firmer grasp on things than her "victim".