The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Nixon's impeachment inquiry related, in part, to his abuse of the IRS.

The attorney for 41 conservative groups targeted by the IRS says the FBI has not interviewed a single one of her clients.

And the FBI has apparently already decided not to bring any criminal charges.

Use the IRS to target non conformers, no big deal, slow down traffic on a bridge, biggest news in 4 years, Feds all over it.

RealJustme wrote:Use the IRS to target non conformers, no big deal, slow down traffic on a bridge, biggest news in 4 years, Feds all over it.

Once Issa found out the audits were started by a republican, then Issa went after the FBI....

:lol:

Feds were certainly all over Christie because he is a Republican.

But it was a disgrace when Nixon used the IRS to pursue political enemies.

Liberals who celebrate Obama abusing the IRS and DoJ are foolish and shortsighted.

If a group calling itself "Tea Party Patriots Against Obama," or some similar idiocy tries to claim they are some kind of "social welfare" group deserving of tax-exempt status, then they should be prosecuted and removed from the general populace out here and put in the general populace of a prison. It is what it is and that's what it is; They're trying to break the law and should be punished.

Chairman Issa knows this. It's why he's not pushing it beyond a Fox News dog and pony show that is designed solely to rile up the ignorati base of the GOP.








Marco

Tea Party groups are, of course, part and parcel of social welfare.

That's quite legit.

What is more American than lower taxes and more freedom?

What contributes more to the general good?

Those things made America great; lack of them is ruining the country.

Tea Party groups are, of course, part and parcel of social welfare.

I truly believe you believe that, Forbes.

^^^^^When it comes to insulting johnforbes, I can't even come close to Grog's cruelty. :o

Clownhicker has many limitations, and it is entirely true that Clownhicker is more stupid than Grog.

That aside -- much time could be expended assessing the relative stupidity of Clownhicker and, say, a tree stump -- it is indisputably true that lower taxes and more freedom contribute to the general welfare.

What made America great?

Was it bureaucracy and little freedom, high taxes and socialism? No.

So you're also an Original Constitutionalist, Forbes?

Any so-called "laws" or regulations or agencies not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or formally amended thereafter, are by definition unconstitutional and therefore illegal and an abridgment of your God-granted liberties and freedoms?

Oh, please.

Any constitution, of any country, is a piece of paper setting out the hopes and dreams of a people.

So then you're an anti-constitutionalist, who believes such documents are little more than a wish list, if not just a goddamm piece of paper?

I wonder why so many people, especially conservatives, dwell on and refer back to the U.S. Constitution as the basis for all that if good and just, and legal?

I wonder why so many people, especially conservatives, dwell on and refer back to the U.S. Constitution as the basis for all that if good and just, and legal?

Now Grog is quoting Obama.

No. I'm asking Forbes (thus the ?) about his opinion about the importance and relevance of the Constitution.

I assume he hasn't responded yet because he is either honoring MLK, or he's out running about town in his exceptionally snug shorts whilst making sure the wind doesn't wreck his carefully coiffed "tousled look" that he copied from Tea Party philosopher and unrepentant plagiarist, Rand Paul.

King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and the "Dream" speech and his Nobel lecture all contained significant portions taken from other sources.

Yet a liberal committee investigating the plagiarism determined in a September 1991 report "because King plagiarized only 45 percent of the first half of his dissertation and only 21 percent of the second, the thesis remains a legitimate and 'intelligent contribution to scholarship' about which 'no thought should be given to the revocation of King's doctoral degree'

So you justify Paul's plagiarism by citing King's? Whatever happened to that most noble of exclusive conservative values, "personal responsibility?"


At any rate, Forbes, we're trying to determine if you are an anti-constitutionalist, based upon your statement that it's nothing more than "the hopes and dreams of a people."

Plagarism is eliminated by cross referencing source materal.

Revoking MLK diploma would have been sheer idiocy. Only to the credentialists, a paper document transcends the impact that MLK had on society...

And yes, don't check the creds of Darrell Issa, aka, Mr Grand Theft Auto who happens to be ironically investigating the IRS. But it gets even better, Darrell happens to find out the guy who ordered the investigation of tea baggery groups found out the decision maker was a republican loyalist.

So what does he do?

Investigate the FBI.......Go figure.

If you've ever read what King did, it wasn't a matter of forgetting a footnote.

As even the pro-King panel at the university realized, huge percentages of his doctoral paper were plagiarized.

Anybody else would have had the doctorate revoked, and they would have been tossed out the door for fraudulent intent.

But was King a great public speaker? Sure, and despite his many flaws -- he banged as many white interns as time permitted -- he did some good in this vale of tears.