# Was it a False Flag attack by a couple of IRS employes to lead to mainstream Tax Revolt **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2013, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850 "2013-06-01T10:16:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/421 "2013-06-20T11:21:00Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No. “All the attacks” on you began because you initiated this nonsense with your own CT and spent an inordinate amount of time pretending that you had not, thus poisoning the well for future discussion, then diverted the thread into silly semantic games over the use of words such as “scandal.” > > At no time have you simply stood back and suggested that there was a rush to judgment. You have variously insisted that the IRS agents were simply legitimately doing their job, that the whole incident was liable to start a tax rebellion, and other scenarios. I was responding to Human Action and Human Actions’ and other attacks on me about my false understanding of what a 'scandal actually is or means… I realize your claim to fame here on this particular thread is a personal attack on me (Glenn Beck must be my mentor) base upon the original OP ‘what if’ question that you have chosen to beat to death apparently - but the discussion has moved on to other related issues… My ‘what if’ question turned out to be more plausible then many of you declared.. since it was a Republican and an underling that most likely started the whole mess. So it was a mistake. But many of you ridiculed me on the bases that I somehow surmised that a couple of employees could have been responsible for holding up Tea Party applications for over a year. I wonder if anyone in the counter-terrorism field pose what if questions about things unimagined yet as ways for terrorists to pull off an attack. What If questions have more than one ‘Glenn Beck’ purpose in my view. Broaden your horizon. I am quite pleased to see the responses on this thread - specifically Human Action’s admission that ‘judgment’ is replaced by ‘concession’ basically to idiots in this world who are in my view expressing an out of control CT that Obama directly ordered the targeting of his political enemies through the IRS. Judgment is conceded to idiots because idiocy is a reality. That is a very interesting concept, I’d like to hear your viewpoint on it. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/422 "2013-06-20T12:11:05Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > So all the attacks on me are essentially for ‘making a judgment’ on when to apply the definition of scandal to nearly insane and idiotic allegations and CT’s against Obama and government institutions which come by the reality of ‘idiot majority or mob rule’ while you are proud of yourself for making a concession to the reality that idiots can form into mobs and they exist. No. Advice for the future: if your understanding of a situation is one that paints you as a crusading rebel iconoclast, weathering the slings and arrows of lesser lights as you fight for truth and reason, then your understanding is almost certainly wrong. The most forgiving interpretation of your posts in this thread is that the OP was a rhetorical device, not an honestly proposed conspiracy theory, and that your objection to use of the word “scandal” stemmed from your personal definition of it, which would have required Obama to be personally implicated in these events. The “attacks” were merely pointing out that a) a scandal doesn’t require the implication of a high-level person or public figure, b) “scandal” also refers to the coverage and public dialogue itself (“damage to reputation; public disgrace” and “defamatory talk; malicious gossip”, remember?), c) as the IRS’ admitted actions were wrong, these events meet the other meanings of “scandal” anyway, just not your personal, idosyncratic one, and d) it’s best to wait until all the facts are in before making judgments. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You don’t agree but you concede to their reality not the reality that should prevail which is truth and evidence prevailing over lies and hysteria. > > I see. You’re not getting it. The reality is that this was a scandal. Your mind makes the leap that using that word implies that Obama was involved, but it doesn’t actually mean that. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/423 "2013-06-20T20:30:44Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > No. > > Advice for the future: if your understanding of a situation is one that paints you as a crusading rebel iconoclast, weathering the slings and arrows of lesser lights as you fight for truth and reason, then your understanding is almost certainly wrong. > > The most forgiving interpretation of your posts in this thread is that the OP was a rhetorical device, not an honestly proposed conspiracy theory, and that your objection to use of the word “scandal” stemmed from your personal definition of it, which would have required Obama to be personally implicated in these events. > > The “attacks” were merely pointing out that a) a scandal doesn’t require the implication of a high-level person or public figure, b) “scandal” also refers to the coverage and public dialogue itself (“damage to reputation; public disgrace” and “defamatory talk; malicious gossip”, remember?), c) as the IRS’ admitted actions were wrong, these events meet the other meanings of “scandal” anyway, just not your personal, idosyncratic one, and d) it’s best to wait until all the facts are in before making judgments. > > You’re not getting it. The reality is that this was a scandal. Your mind makes the leap that using that word implies that Obama was involved, but it doesn’t actually mean that. There is no leap - I’m saying the impetus that moves the IRS mistake to your scandal label is the wild assed leap of conjecture that Obama ordered the folks in Cincinnati to target his political enemies. And you accept what XT called public mass as a reason to label the IRS mistake as a scandal without any need for Obama to be implicated in an wrong doing on his part. Read what Adaher is saying on another thread - Obama is guilty until he can prove himself not involved. I say you don’t get public mass unless the public massively thinks like Adaher does. You’ve got a conundrum that can’t be resolved. I say those who wish not to jump to conclusions until all investigations are done (ie never) should refer to this affair as a controversy until such time that anyone can prove Obama took part in the targeting of Tea Party victims who have been trampled under by the jackboot of tyrant. What is wrong with labeling it a controversy until such time the facts are in. The fact about the Republican IRS Manager causing the whole mess with one underling takes controversy out of the possibility of Obama’s involvement. No one should have put scandal IRS and Obama together because scandal implies wrong doing - Obama has done nothing wrong involving the IRS or any other dozen or so Obama so called scandals going around. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/424 "2013-06-20T20:52:40Z")
What John Edwards did is a scandal. Anthony Weiner not as bad as Edwards but when the photos/text are made public Sorry Weiner Head you got yourself into a scandal. President Clinton Monica Lewinski yep. scandal, CIA Director Petraeus whom I have a lot of respect - ends up with a scandal, Sorry, I’ve seen nothing that links Obama to anything close to a scandal - yet according to many he is being overwhelmed by scandal in his second term. I like what that CNN reporter wrote - Obama is surrounded by many controversies. That is a better label than scandal. Controversy is a viable word in English isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/425 "2013-06-20T22:32:16Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I realize your claim to fame here on this particular thread is a personal attack on me (Glenn Beck must be my mentor) base upon the original OP ‘what if’ question that you have chosen to beat to death apparently - but the discussion has moved on to other related issues… I made no personal attack on you. I pointed out very accurately that your statements exactly mirrored those of the behavior of Mr. Beck. When you protested that you never ever watched him, I immediately withdrew the suggestion that you had learned from him–which did not change the fact that your behavior was pretty much identical to his. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > My ‘what if’ question turned out to be more plausible then many of you declared.. since it was a Republican and an underling that most likely started the whole mess. Piffle. Your “question” was whether it was some sort of deliberate false flag attack on the administration. The politics of the person who may have been responsible is irrelevant unless his politics played a role in his decision. Nothing that he or you or anyone else has brought up has provided any slight suggestion that his actions were politically motivated. That fails to make your “question” more plausible. It just means that you will cling to any straw to pretend that your OP was not an absurd Conspiracy Theory. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > What If questions have more than one ‘Glenn Beck’ purpose in my view. Your view is pretty limited. “What if” questions are a valid way to examine a whole host of things in this world. However, your “what if” failed to do any such thing. You are carefully ignoring the specific objections that were actually brought against your CT. That a couple of Tea Party operatives or Rovians could deliberately interfere with IRS procedures for the purpose of embarrassing the administration is a legitimate “what if”–provided the question is asked at the time that the incident is occurs. By the time that you were “Just Asking your Question,” we had already passed through the presidential election when it would have been most beneficial to use as a weapon against the Obama campaign, (particularly in light of the grief that Romney pulled down on his head with regard to taxes and the IRS). So, in typical CT fashion, you proposed that it was carried out by genius idiots who could work their way into the specific positions in the IRS where they would have access to do nasty things to their political allies, but who then failed to bring those nasty actions to the attention of the electorate until six months after the election had been resoundingly lost. Your “question” was the equivalent of suggesting that the Japanese had been able to arrange to trick FDR into letting the Japanese fleet attack Pearl Harbor, but then not sending the trigger to get him to do it until the Battle of Midway was under way. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Judgment is conceded to idiots because idiocy is a reality. > > That is a very interesting concept, > > I’d like to hear your viewpoint on it. Are you asking me to use this thread as the example? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/426 "2013-06-20T22:53:47Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > There is no leap - I’m saying the impetus that moves the IRS mistake to your scandal label is the wild assed leap of conjecture that Obama ordered the folks in Cincinnati to target his political enemies. You’re mistaken. And, I have evidence: left-leaning media outlets like the Huffington Post and CNN called it a scandal, despite not claiming that Obama was responsible for what the IRS had done. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And you accept what XT called public mass as a reason to label the IRS mistake as a scandal without any need for Obama to be implicated in an wrong doing on his part. Exactly. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Read what Adaher is saying on another thread - Obama is guilty until he can prove himself not involved. That’s not really what he’s saying, he said we should be wary of government, and that the administration’s lack of transparency creates the appearance of impropriety. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I say you don’t get public mass unless the public massively thinks like Adaher does. That’s certainly possible. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I say those who wish not to jump to conclusions until all investigations are done (ie never) should refer to this affair as a controversy until such time that anyone can prove Obama took part in the targeting of Tea Party victims who have been trampled under by the jackboot of tyrant. > What is wrong with labeling it a controversy until such time the facts are in. Does that include you? Because you yourself jumped to conclusions. And you’ve reverted to the scandal = Obama idea. The problem with ‘controversy’ is that it means something different than ‘scandal’. ‘Controversy’ is more fitting for something like the drone-strike program, because it’s not “wrong”, ie illegal, it’s just that some people think it should be either illegal, not done, or done differently. In the IRS matter, what they did _was_ wrong, which they admitted. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The fact about the Republican IRS Manager causing the whole mess with one underling takes controversy out of the possibility of Obama’s involvement. No one should have put scandal IRS and Obama together because scandal implies wrong doing - Obama has done nothing wrong involving the IRS or any other dozen or so Obama so called scandals going around. Scandal /= Obama. Again. Obama is the head of the executive branch, so he does bear some responsibility for what they get up to, though he can’t be expected to personally supervise everything. A better measure of his performance is how he reacts to wrongdoing when it is discovered. In this case, I’d call it “decent”. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/427 "2013-06-22T00:48:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I made no personal attack on you. I pointed out very accurately that your statements exactly mirrored those of the behavior of Mr. Beck. When you protested that you never ever watched him, I immediately withdrew the suggestion that you had learned from him–which did not change the fact that your behavior was pretty much identical to his. I presume that Glenn Beck has a long history of these ‘what if’ conspiracy theory doo-hikkies, but I don’t. I can’t prove to any of you my thought when I chose this title just as you cannot prove that my intent was to promote a CT, Glenn Beck style. Since posting a CT was not my ‘style’ and out of character and this was the first time, triggered by my use of false flag in the title, there was still an opportunity to ask if I was suggesting a false flag attack had actually taken place or if I was trying to get a reaction as to what would happen if it turned out to be the case. But on that point, I have found some of the recent conversation interesting and on that basis, I have no regrets for starting this thread. I wish I would have chosen this for a title: What if a couple of Republican IRS employees somehow started the Tea Party targeting? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/428 "2013-06-22T11:08:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Again, what is historic about this scandal, what makes it unique and uniquely dangerous, is that\*\* it is different in kind from previous IRS scandals\*\*. \*Peggy Noonan Just pointing out that a renowned conservative political pundit has established that there is an assortment of different kinds of scandals. > [@](#): > > In the past it was always elite versus elite, power guys using the agency against other power guys. This scandal is different because it’s the elite versus the people. It is an entrenched and fearsome power versus regular citizens. \*Peggy Noonan One strained argument here is that the IRS scandal does not require Obama’s participation in the mis-deed. The only thing known for sure however is that a low-level Republican, hardly an elite, has claimed responsibility for the misdeed.. it did not come from the elites in Washington. Yet Peggy Noonan, I would consider a scandal monger from the right is pushing this as a ‘different, more dangerous scandal’ than previous IRS scandals in fact were. When Noonan in a prestigious newspaper like the WSJ states that this ‘scandal’ is elites vs the people, is she not making it specifically all about Obama being involved and the driver of elites harassing the common people? Just wondering out loud right now against a back drop being laid out here that the IRS controversy is a scandal and need not have Obama implicated in anything directly to it. \*Peggy Noonan [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557903396922628.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557903396922628.html) ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/429 "2013-06-22T13:32:23Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Just pointing out that a renowned conservative political pundit has established that there is an assortment of different kinds of scandals. Now it’s your turn to grasp that obvious truth. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > One strained argument here is that the IRS scandal does not require Obama’s participation in the mis-deed. The only thing known for sure however is that a low-level Republican, hardly an elite, has claimed responsibility for the misdeed.. it did not come from the elites in Washington. Yet Peggy Noonan, I would consider a scandal monger from the right is pushing this as a ‘different, more dangerous scandal’ than previous IRS scandals in fact were. “Strained” must be the new “self-evident”. What she’s (presumably) doing is contrasting this IRS scandal, in which the affected were, by and large, outsiders: political novices trying to organize a grassroots movement (There are exceptions, of course, like Dick Armey), with something like Nixon’s abuse of the IRS, in which the affected were political elites: Democratic presidential candidates and high-level supporters of them. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > When Noonan in a prestigious newspaper like the WSJ states that this ‘scandal’ is elites vs the people, is she not making it specifically all about Obama being involved and the driver of elites harassing the common people? No, she **specifically isn’t doing that:** > [@Noonan](#): > > Nobody imagines the White House picked up a phone to tell IRS workers in Cincinnati to target their enemies. She’s saying that the investigation needs to proceed (and complaining about its seeming lack of vigor), despite Rep. Cumming’s calls for “case closed”, because there is some testimony that the Washington office of the IRS was involved, not just the Cincinnati office: > [@Noonan](#): > > The evidence is overwhelming that the Washington office of the IRS was involved. But who in Washington? How high did it go, how many were involved, how exactly did they operate? > > Those are the questions that remain to be answered. That’s what the investigations are about. Now, you’re free to read whatever subtext you want into Noonan’s prose. But the word “Obama” appears exactly _once_, in the second paragraph, and she doesn’t accuse him of anything. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Just wondering out loud right now against a back drop being laid out here that the IRS controversy is a scandal and need not have Obama implicated in anything directly to it. And that is still true. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/430 "2013-06-22T13:38:02Z")
Honestly, **NotfooledbyW** , if that article passes for “scandal mongering” for you, than any articles with headlines other than “Obama Still Amazing”, “Obama Not Involved In IRS Targeting, Unfinished Investigation Concludes”, or “Obama Ascends Directly To Heaven; Onlookers Cured Of Illnesses” probably will too. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/431 "2013-06-22T14:17:27Z")
Question for HA; do you consider the IRS manager who said he done it by mistake without orders from DC to be committing a dangerous act by an elite against the people? And the definition of a scandal is > [@](#): > > scandal[skan-dl] noun > > 1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc. > 2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed. > 3. damage to reputation; public disgrace.; public disgrace. According to Noonan ‘elites’ have committed, not maybe committed, a discreditable and unprecedented action against the people because she refers to ‘this scandal’ not ‘this investigation into the low level manager’ scandal that might lead to the WH. Noonan wrote in plain English: > [@](#): > > “This scandal is different because it’s the elite versus the people.” \*Peggy Noonan She is stating an untruth as fact. Sorry HA, it is right there. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/432 "2013-06-22T14:23:58Z")
> [@](#): > > scandal[skan-dl] noun > > 1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc. You nailed it. The IRS case is a scandal. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/433 "2013-06-22T14:28:56Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Question for HA; do you consider the IRS manager who said he done it by mistake without orders from DC to be committing a dangerous act by an elite against the people? Yes. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And the definition of a scandal is > > According to Noonan ‘elites’ have committed, not maybe committed, a discreditable and unprecedented action against the people because she refers to ‘this scandal’ not ‘this investigation into the low level manager’ scandal that might lead to the WH. > > Noonan wrote in plain English: The _action_ isn’t disputed, and it was discreditable. Again, the existence of a scandal is incontrovertible, the question is who will be implicated in it. Further, I suppose it depends on what you take “elites” to mean. Her next sentence was: > [@](#): > > It is an entrenched and fearsome power versus regular citizens. It certainly is that. The IRS is entrenched, and fearsome, in a way that a Presidential administration isn’t, and can’t be, given our term limits. You take Noonan as referring to Obama, but to my reading the article is actually about the Washington-based management of the IRS. She names Lois Lerner, for example, and evidence that she was involved: > [@](#): > > Word came that one applicant group, after receiving lengthy and intrusive requests for additional information, including donor names, received yet another letter asking for even more information—signed by Lois Lerner. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > She is stating an untruth as fact. Sorry HA, it is right there. Eh, not really. You take “elites” to mean “Obama”, but that needn’t be the case. It can mean the IRS as a whole (“entrenched, fearsome power”) or the administration thereof. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/434 "2013-06-22T18:43:31Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Yes. > > The _action_ isn’t disputed, and it was discreditable. Again, the existence of a scandal is incontrovertible, the question is who will be implicated in it. > > Further, I suppose it depends on what you take “elites” to mean. Her next sentence was: > > It certainly is that. The IRS is entrenched, and fearsome, in a way that a Presidential administration isn’t, and can’t be, given our term limits. > > You take Noonan as referring to Obama, but to my reading the article is actually about the Washington-based management of the IRS. She names Lois Lerner, for example, and evidence that she was involved: > > Eh, not really. You take “elites” to mean “Obama”, but that needn’t be the case. It can mean the IRS as a whole (“entrenched, fearsome power”) or the administration thereof. Believe me when the mass of humanity hears the word elites coming from the likes of Noonan’s keyboard they know its Obama Etc … Noonan spoke of iRS scandals prior to this controversy as elites vs elites - that’s most likely a US President against some one who wants the Oval Office next. That’s not a suggestive reference to low level manager elites going after other low level manager elites. We know what Noonan meant, but you can have your low level manager elites vs the people and call the IRS an elite as if all 70,000 employees are elites, but no one but your friends here would believe you. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/435 "2013-06-22T19:55:54Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Believe me when the mass of humanity hears the word elites coming from the likes of Noonan’s keyboard they know its Obama Etc … Cite? Because no, I don’t believe you. So now you need to demonstrate that when Noonan was talking about the IRS, the majority thinks she is talking about Obama. > [@](#): > > We know what Noonan meant… We do, but I don’t think you do. So let’s see some proof that what you claim is true. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/436 "2013-06-22T21:06:38Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Believe me when the mass of humanity hears the word elites coming from the likes of Noonan’s keyboard they know its Obama Etc … > > Noonan spoke of iRS scandals prior to this controversy as elites vs elites - that’s most likely a US President against some one who wants the Oval Office next. That’s not a suggestive reference to low level manager elites going after other low level manager elites. > > We know what Noonan meant, but you can have your low level manager elites vs the people and call the IRS an elite as if all 70,000 employees are elites, but no one but your friends here would believe you. So, this “scandal mongering” is all subtext, and requires the reader to connect several dots. Or, you are projecting your political paranoia. Could be either one. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/437 "2013-06-22T21:52:00Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Believe me when the mass of humanity hears the word elites coming from the likes of Noonan’s keyboard they know its Obama Etc … > > Noonan spoke of iRS scandals prior to this controversy as elites vs elites - that’s most likely a US President against some one who wants the Oval Office next. That’s not a suggestive reference to low level manager elites going after other low level manager elites. > > We know what Noonan meant, but you can have your low level manager elites vs the people and call the IRS an elite as if all 70,000 employees are elites, but no one but your friends here would believe you. You appear to have no clue what Ms. Noonan meant and to ascribe your own misunderstanding to “the mass of humanity” is nothing but more partisan hubris. I doubt that I agree with Ms. Noonan in one out of fifty of her columns, (and I disagree with quite a bit in the column linked), but I recognize that she was referring to the power of the IRS, and certainly not to President Obama. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/438 "2013-06-22T23:25:09Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You appear to have no clue what Ms. Noonan meant and to ascribe your own misunderstanding to “the mass of humanity” is nothing but more partisan hubris. > > I doubt that I agree with Ms. Noonan in one out of fifty of her columns, (and I disagree with quite a bit in the column linked), but I recognize that she was referring to the power of the IRS, and certainly not to President Obama. I disagree and I have already made a valid point as to why. Noonan compared this scandal to past IRS scandals that she defined as elites vs elites. So please tell me if you are aware of any past IRS scandal where the IRS, the power of the IRS, acted on its own to harass other elites, and all the harassing was independent of the executive branch having anything to do with it? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/439 "2013-06-22T23:51:22Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > You nailed it. The IRS case is a scandal. Not for Obama. There is no evidence that Obama was involved as an elitist vs elitist or vs the prople as happened in the biggest IRS scandal ever: > [@](#): > > What did Nixon do? > The White House tapes recorded Nixon urging aide John Ehrlichman in 1971 to get the IRS to dig into the tax returns of possible Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Edmund Muskie, Hubert Humphrey, and Ted Kennedy. “I can only hope that we are, frankly, doing a little persecuting,” Nixon said. “There’s a lot of gold in them thar hills.” In 1969, the Nixon administration set up an IRS unit called the Special Service Staff, which used tax records to assemble dossiers on more than 11,000 groups and individuals. After the 1972 election, Nixon staffers gave the IRS a list of 576 supporters of Democrat George McGovern. In 1974, one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon charged him with seeking “confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law.” [http://m.theweek.com/article.php?id=245319](http://m.theweek.com/article.php?id=245319) Noonan compared the current scandal of elites(1) vs the people to past scandals of elites(1) vs elites. Nixon vs political opponent elites. Nixon was a president then. Obama is the president now. There is no stretch to conclude that elite(1) is whoever is president at the time. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2013, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850/440 "2013-06-23T00:36:28Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > There is no stretch to conclude that elite(1) is whoever is president at the time. Sure about that, Plastic Man? It’s much more reasonable to assume that _the arm of the government concerned with collecting and enforcing the collection of tax revenues_ is the “elite” group that was dealing with (some-but-not-all) legitimate grass roots protest groups. Or, ya know, this abortion of a thread is correct. But I doubt it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-it-a-false-flag-attack-by-a-couple-of-irs-employes-to-lead-to-mainstream-tax-revolt/659850.md?page=23)