What’s that you say, Mr. Issa? All of it, the whole truth! Excellent!
Well, maybe not the whole truth. Gotta be careful, don’t want to “jeopordize the integrity of the investigation” by releasing too much of the truth. Better to release those portions which support a desired narrative, otherwise you risk confusing the public with too many facts. And that would be bad.
I am not afraid, Mr. Issa. I have the good sense God gave a goose, and enough brains to make my own oatmeal. I stand ready to face the fearful consequences of being told the truth. Time to seize the bull by the tail and face the situation!
I believe it is fair to refer to people such as the ones who came to Congress to testify about the mistreatment they received when applying for tax free status as Tea Party Members or groups or whatever.
I do feel justified when those same Tea Party Group leaders refer to Americans working in the IRS as Jackbooted thugs.
At which point Katy Bar the door we are under attack by TeaBagging Scum.
They crossed a line where sympathy must not follow for their plight.
This Tax Exempt status is for organizations dedicated to the betterment of society.
Calling IRS employees Jack Booted Thugs does not better society.
Since this Teabagger got her exemption it should be reviewed since the Jack Boot comment to Congress.
She can say it all she wants… but why must we give tax exemptions to such hatred.
Hmmm…I recall use of the term “jackboot of tyranny”, but cite that anyone referred to the IRS as “thugs”?
Yes, her organization must be punished for her criticism of the government (in a hearing about their treatment by the government, of course)! That’s the American way!
Are you operating under the assumption that if he can’t cite that, you win the internet?
The issue isn’t whether or not Tea Party groups say stupid things, of course they do. So do Democrats and Republicans. The first and foremost issue is whether or not the Tea Party groups were “targeted” (a word that seems to have a wide spectrum of meaning, from “noticed” to “mercilessly hounded”). And if that targeting was directed from on high.
Compared to those questions, who called whom what vanishes to insignificance.
The phrase took on currency back in 1996 or so, when Wayne LaPierre, of the NRA, after the Oklahoma City bombing, was widely criticized (and eventually apologized) for a direct mail letter referring to federal agents as “jackbooted thugs.”
I don’t believe he meant the IRS. But that was pretty much the origin of the phrase in modern political rhetoric.
Oddly, Urban Dictonary refers to any group that is “overly oppressive”. Leading one to wonder if there is an appropriate and moderate degree of oppression that is not excessive.
But I digress. Have we resolved the crucial issue of who said what, and when?
I’ll take ‘jackboot of tyranny’ before Congress to validate my point that These leaders refer to IRS employees as jackbooted thugs.
Plenty of TeaBaggers figured out what she meant instantly.
I guess I really messed up to assume that the Jackboot of Tyrrany will be carried out by jackbooted angels.
But your typical TeaBagger got
Perhaps Issa should have explained that it was a Republican manager that committed the first mistake that got the Jackboot of Tyrrany going in the first place.
And are we being asked that this is Tyrrany when the jackboot’s victims are being questioned about their political purpose when applying for tax exempt status for social work that is not supposed to be political.
When a TeaBagger tells us to jump are we all supposed to ask how high.
These people are nuts to equate problems, and most likely mistakes made by at least one self professed Republican, concerning their tax status applications, with the jackboot tyranny.
You think TeaBagger leaders escalating this issue to a status if ‘jackboot of tyranny’ is beneficial in any way?
Just for the heck of it, Notfooled, is there anybody on this board who “gets” your argument? I kinda get the impression there is not, and if that was true, it might be an indicator to adjust said arguments rather than trying to explain and re-explain them.
Any argument you’ve made. Any at all. Seriously, it seems like all the posts you make in reply to someone are variations on them not getting your point.
Am I entitled to clarity from you on which argument you speak. It seems generalities are used against me quite often where I get little detail from my detracters. When I get into detail then I’m accused of some other violation… -one trick pony etc.
For Instance… I was told that My "what if’ question on this thread was ‘impossible’ and 'had no chance of being true because among many things Two Agents in the IRS could not have done all this damage or got it started.
Well, what have we here?
But first remember that I was asking if something like this could happen, not promoting it as true.
It is possible that “one” person could have touched off what the Republicans and activists now call the “Jackboot of Tyranny” and it could very well be the doings of two people.
Now I am not claiming this Republican in Cinci had the intent to stir up animosity for the IRS when he decided what he did. It looks as if he was pushing what he thought was the rule of law.
But the damage is done isn’t it.
And it is Gol-Danged POSSIBLE that one sinister minded Right Winger could have instigated it…
Again - I am not saying that that is the case… I was asking what if it turned out.
I think as this report holds up their should be repurcussions in a fair world where US Journalists do their job and ask for at least some apologies from TeaBagger maniacs who elevated this to
the
JACKBOOT of TYRANNY level and farce that it has become.
IF that is not clear I am quite happy to further explain my viewpoint to you.
All you need to do is ask.
Republicans and activists were seeing the “jackboot of tyranny” every time Obama changed his pants.
But anyway, if you were honestly asking if it could happen that someone targeted right-wing groups with the intent of inciting those right-wing groups to engage in a wide-scale tax revolt… sure, it’s possible. That didn’t happen, of course, but it’s possible.
What you have, essentially, is the rather unlikely premise of a political novel about the end of (or at least a crisis for) the United States. Take it to Cafe Society - there are posters there who I’m sure will be happy to help you flesh out the idea and spin out any number of “what if” storylines for you.
I’m not sure what the debate value of it is, though, and with a casual review of your posts in this thread, apparently by not taking your question seriously, I’m somehow suppressing you or am incapable of original thought or robotically following my groupthink programming or something.
Actually, on review, the post I found much more disturbing than anything NotFooled wrote was this one:
I dunno if Koxinga was serious (I expect not), but invoking the 5th does not and should not (and indeed must not) be seen as incriminating in itself. As I recall, the general phrasing of someone invoking the 5th is that answering questions “might tend” to incriminate someone, which is quite distinct from actually incriminating them. Heck, a person could be absolutely 100% innocent, but know the government’s questions aren’t about finding facts, but assigning blame (deserved or otherwise). Invoking the 5th is just a polite way of telling them to go fuck themselves.
I’d kinda like it if the “On the advice of council, I invoke my 5th amendment right…” speech was replaced with “I’m not going to answer that question - fuck you.”