Actually, that statement has already been discredited. Ignoring contradictory evidence does not make you correct.
False statements about a heated political scandal are inflammatory.
I didn’t say you were a liar, so I don’t need to show where you lied, do I?
While it is true that that is a statement made by the outgoing head of the IRS*, that’s not what I called you on. You wrote that this scandal must be the fault of two IRS agents. I asked you if you stood by this, and you did. Think about that: it must be. You’re declaring the investigation needless, everybody go home, nothing to see here. It must be two agents’ doing.
- which is turning out to be inaccurate, as Age Quod Agis and I have said.
That’s what bending the truth is: word choices that mislead the reader.
You know that’s not what I said. You must really enjoy the role of the martyr, that’s all this thread has been.
He said this, and she said that. She must be telling the truth, since it fits your narrative so well. Case closed.
But think on it. If she had no authority to act on anything without her supervisor’s approval, what the hell was he job? Stacking the applications neatly before passing them up to him? That makes sense to you?
Do you know with certainty that the IRS as an institution or it’s top leadership were abusing it’s authority or that it was two employees or maybe a few more out of 90,000 that are guilty of wrongdoing and violation of IRS standards and procedures.
What I understand at the moment is that some abuse occurred in a localized area of IRS operations that deal with applications for social welfare groups seeking tax exempt status and has been limited to very few individuals who have been disciplined for their inappropriate conduct.
So why must you characterize this troubling but limited abuse as the entire IRS abusing it’s authority.
What do you know that allows you to blow this affair out of proportion?
You didn’t say, after I pointed out OReilly’s lie that I am doing equal but opposite to the Truth Bending’ that o’Reilly does.?
This is nonsense and I already know that you will shuck and jive and dance to avoid facing the issue. I have better things to do with my life that to try to persuade one more CT proponent (who has no followers in his odd beliefs) to consider dropping his partisan agenda.
I have no idea why you think the president, who has the power to give direct orders the the IRS administration, as it is a department reporting directly to a cabinet position, lacks the authority to compel it to present evidence of a “false flag” operation if he is aware of one. That is just silly and I can see why you waited two weeks to respond, probably hoping that I would forget what my actual statement was in context.
An “equal response” is not the same as “an identical response.” No one has accused you of lying and your persistent efforts over multiple pages to make that an issue in this thread are out of line.
Drop it. EVERYONE.
[ /Moderating ]
Seriously, explain how that testimony discredits the initial report and testimony by Zmiller about two rogue agents being disciplined.
Could I get an explanation on how this discrediting works.
Has this woman or this lawyer been disciplined or accused of doing something wrong?
There’s an “IF” again. Your argument is relying on an IF scenario that has never been a part of what I am saying.
So I don’t know what you think is silly since that “IF” has nothing to do with me.
By the time Obama knew about this there was a Treasury Dept. investigation in progress.
The report he received determined it was a low level matter and all but two of the recommendations for correcting the matter were being implemented.
But another reason Obama could not ‘compel’ evidence for political benefit is because
That was Mid May also.
Do you still think Obsma could ‘compel’ somthing out of Treasury for political motives?
Do you agree with my entire statement? if so thank you?
That I am a CT proponent is your opinion based upon flimsy logic not on what on what I have written.
If that is your argument there’s little that I can do, but defend myself as best I can by pointing out the weakness in some of your supportive logic or thinking.
I have responded to more of your charges of silliness, and I do not think I am off base or incorrect or silly.
Your OP was a “what if.” Using “if” in the reply is appropriate.
That you are a CT proponent is amply demonstrated by the CT that you proposed in your OP. You will note that on a board with a large number of Left wing posters, several have joined me in pointing out that they saw the same CT and no one has countered that your OP was not a Conspiracy Theory.
The only thing “flimsy” was your rather silly effort to try to get people to believe your theory that the agents involved in the issue might have been Right Wing operatives who conspired to embarrass the administration, (but who somehow didn’t get around to making this a bigger deal prior to last Fall’s election).
I don’t think my detractors understand what is going on with this woman’s testimony. I will get into it but there is a general principle here that this aspect of the ‘IRS mistakes’ revolves around the alleged improper questions asked.
The meat of the mistake revolves around the use of shortcuts to detemine which applications receive extra scrutiny.
The shortcut issue I suspect did not involve this worker or the lawyer in DC.
This latest news is about the ‘questions’ aspect where this woman was properly asking this lawyer for guidance on proper questions to ask.
But the problem for scandal mongers and scandal symps with cherry picking the ‘questions’ testimony is that most of the questions asked if these TeaParty groups were proper.
Where did the so-called improper questions come from?
Making headlines out of this testimony is pretty much what we should expect from the scandal monger crowd.
The proposition that this testimony debunks previous testimony about two rogue employees causing much of the harm is what I want to see explained right here,
I wonder if we will get it?
Your “if” is required to be true (Obama heard about it) in order for your argument to be valid, and as a relevant part of my argument.
Your If possibilty was never part of my argument thus yours is invalid.
On the other hand my ‘what if’ is neither required to be true or false, nor have I invented it to be part of anyone’s argument so I can call it silly.
You may call anything you wish “silly.” We’ll just consider the source.
I understand that you have your opinions of the source.
What am not seeing is rebuttals to my facts and arguments.
My point about the President keeping hands off the IRS investigation because a Justice Dept investigation has been started must not be silly.
Replies are all to do about the source, instead.
No comment on two IRS employees being disciplined is still a matter of fact right now?
If my reference to that number is somehow improper perhaps you can assist my detractors in explaining why if you have some time?
Thought for the night - my idea of what constitutes a scandal right off the bat is the blatently obvious illegal or immoral activity by public employees when they are caught or outed.
Mistakes by Federal Employees in subordinate roles do not make them scandals in my view.
However mistakes by even a small number of employees can be scandal fodder when the pigs are hungry,
And in this case at the IRS the pigs are in a frenzy to get their snouts in the trough.
Please review my statement. I did not call anything silly. I said I did not make something up so I could call it silly.
Here it is:
It’s required to be reasonably possible. That it is not.
You, yourself, have said you don’t believe it. Why do you object when we also don’t believe it?
I have never objected to any non-belief of the OP.