Is Obama America's Rob Pierre?

After listening to the SOTU address, just asking.

Is Eric Holder Oscar Saint Just?

::a Pointy-Headed Liberal replies::
I seldom reply to you,
but this time, let's see.

Pierre got power by violent coup d'etat.
Obama, by winning a by-the-rules election.

Pierre kills any legislator, committee person,
or other politician he doesn't like.
Obama has yet to kill any politican.
(Not everyone here would call that advantage Obama!)


Pierre intends to end unemployment by
putting everyone to work in War Industries.
Obama has ... different ideas.
(We may disagree on how well they will work,
or even on what they are,
but we may agree that none of Obama's ideas,
involve War Industries. )

So no, he isn't.
Duh!

I expect that I should resume not-replying to you.

Pointy-Headed Liberal Map-addict

namelessfly wrote:After listening to the SOTU address, just asking.

Is Eric Holder Oscar Saint Just?

I expect that I should resume not-replying to you.

Keep replying to him. As long as things remain civil, it's a lot more interesting to read differing opinions.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:::a Pointy-Headed Liberal replies::
I seldom reply to you,
but this time, let's see.

Pierre got power by violent coup d'etat.
Obama, by winning a by-the-rules election.

Howard,

Just how by the rules is this last election? He used the IRS to limit TEA party fund raising through not granting those groups the tax status to effectively collect donations.

I'll grant that he hasn't launched a violent coup. But please let's not whitewash his rather nixonian use of the IRS.

PZ, Obama got power by winning the "last-but-one"
election, not the "last," so your reply applies to a
different post than my last one.

I will not reply to your specific allegations here,
although I do not accept them.

Howard, a PHL

PeterZ wrote:
[quote="a Pointy-Headed Liberal replies"::]
I seldom reply to you, [Namelessfly],
but this time, let's see.

Pierre got power by violent coup d'etat.
Obama, by winning a by-the-rules election.

[/quote]

Howard,

Just how by the rules is this last election? He used the IRS to limit TEA party fund raising through not granting those groups the tax status to effectively collect donations.

I'll grant that he hasn't launched a violent coup. But please let's not whitewash his rather nixonian use of the IRS.[/quote]

Admitted this what I found on Wikipedia (I don't have time at the moment to go research the primary sources) so it reliability isn't guaranteed.

Wikipedia Article on the 2013 IRS scandal wrote:In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had targeted political groups applying for tax-exempt status for closer scrutiny based on their names or political themes. The Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating the IRS's actions as part of a criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder. This led to both political and public condemnation of the agency and triggered further investigations. Initial reports had described the targeting as nearly exclusively on conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names. Further investigation revealed that certain terms and themes in the applications of liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, though possibly at a lower rate. The only known denial of tax-exempt status occurred to a progressive group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_scandal

PeterZ wrote:

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:::a Pointy-Headed Liberal replies::
I seldom reply to you,
but this time, let's see.

Pierre got power by violent coup d'etat.
Obama, by winning a by-the-rules election.

Howard,

Just how by the rules is this last election? He used the IRS to limit TEA party fund raising through not granting those groups the tax status to effectively collect donations.

I'll grant that he hasn't launched a violent coup. But please let's not whitewash his rather nixonian use of the IRS.

If that is the case then I gather that Sarah Palin would be Alexandra Tonkovich right? And Donald Trump would be Volkart Kalokanos.

Commies to the left of me and Plutocrats to the right... whats a poor little American to do?

Donnachaidh wrote:Admitted this what I found on Wikipedia (I don't have time at the moment to go research the primary sources) so it reliability isn't guaranteed.

Wikipedia Article on the 2013 IRS scandal wrote:In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had targeted political groups applying for tax-exempt status for closer scrutiny based on their names or political themes. The Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating the IRS's actions as part of a criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder. This led to both political and public condemnation of the agency and triggered further investigations. Initial reports had described the targeting as nearly exclusively on conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names. Further investigation revealed that certain terms and themes in the applications of liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, though possibly at a lower rate. The only known denial of tax-exempt status occurred to a progressive group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_scandal

None of the groups were flat out denied. How many of the progressive groups eventually got their status change? How many of the TEA party groups got theirs?

As I recall most of the conservative groups in question never got their status change. The TEA Party groups are STILL under special scutiny.

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/09/the-irs-is-still-targeting-tea-party-groups/

What the actual testimony (I'm excluding the commentary around the transcript excerpt, which was cut immediately after a question and before the IRS agent's response.) is that the direction the agents have been give is to divert the Tea Party-affilated groups' applications to political group secondary screening.

Based on that transcript, what their instructions are is to divert the applications of groups the are openly affiliated with a [i] political[/] movement into the political screening process.

That sounds quite reasonable to me and that's how I'd expect the IRS to handle those kinds of organizations (without regard for the group in question's politics).

I went to the House Ways and Means Committee (the one cited in the article) and I cannot find any evidence that the hearing cited in the article exists, the only thing on calender for August 1, 2013 is "Chairman Camp Announces Hearing on the Status of the Affordable Care Act Implementation". There was a hearing on July 27, 2013 "Camp Announces Hearing on the Status of Internal Revenue Service’s Review of Taxpayer Targeting Practices", the testimony was a report detailing the analysis of what happened and the corrective actions taken.

After several searches I was not able to find any primary sources (aside from the one the opinion piece you linked to used).

PeterZ wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:Admitted this what I found on Wikipedia (I don't have time at the moment to go research the primary sources) so it reliability isn't guaranteed.

Wikipedia Article on the 2013 IRS scandal

In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had targeted political groups applying for tax-exempt status for closer scrutiny based on their names or political themes. The Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating the IRS's actions as part of a criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder. This led to both political and public condemnation of the agency and triggered further investigations. Initial reports had described the targeting as nearly exclusively on conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names. Further investigation revealed that certain terms and themes in the applications of liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, though possibly at a lower rate. The only known denial of tax-exempt status occurred to a progressive group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_scandal

None of the groups were flat out denied. How many of the progressive groups eventually got their status change? How many of the TEA party groups got theirs?

As I recall most of the conservative groups in question never got their status change. The TEA Party groups are STILL under special scutiny.

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/09/the-irs-is-still-targeting-tea-party-groups/

And what of the limiting of the liberal groups as well?

Maybe he just wanted to get the extremist nutters of both sides to stay on the sidelines.....

PeterZ wrote:

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:::a Pointy-Headed Liberal replies::
I seldom reply to you,
but this time, let's see.

Pierre got power by violent coup d'etat.
Obama, by winning a by-the-rules election.

Howard,

Just how by the rules is this last election? He used the IRS to limit TEA party fund raising through not granting those groups the tax status to effectively collect donations.

I'll grant that he hasn't launched a violent coup. But please let's not whitewash his rather nixonian use of the IRS.