That is why I asked you what you believe. So what do you believe?
Because a couple of employees who may have simply thought they were doing their job because the rules they were enforcing were to deny tax free status to groups that primarily were political in nature, and it is called the entire IRS abusing its authority, not a mistake in judgment that has been discovered and addressed.
Similarly, almost all mainstream journalists–not just Fox–are very upset and alarmed that one of their peers was named a likely criminal co-conspirator for the act of pursuing his trade. Even though the journalist in question was with Fox. Also indisputable?
That is not what happened. Groups applying for tax free status may have been singled out on a basis of key words that signify a strong relationship with partisan politics which is not entitled to tax free status.
Individuals were not targeted for personal income tax compliance because if individual political beliefs or activities
We see how far the right wing myth has permeated all thought and opinion on this issue
As opposed to the reality based, left-wing version of your OP?
That one is unraveling for Fox News for several reasons. In the case of Rosen, notification of the subpoena was provided to Fox, and what Risen outed about North Korea had severe national security ramifications and may have put US covert agents lives in danger as it revealed the US had penetrated N Korea’s top leadership inner circle.
Rosin had emerged from the office of the one suspected of leaking the tip just hours before it went to print. From what I read Rosin may have had access to a top secret computer with that information about North Korea on it
The press has certain obligations when it obtains classified information from sources who they know are violating the law when they reveal it.
Perhaps another thread can be started about that case.
I asked a question and you call it a left wing version of the right wing myth that some here show varying degrees of belief in that myth that has millions of believers.
You yourself are convinced that the IRS as a whole abused its authority. Why not draw the line at it was a mistake by very few employees in a large organization perhaps caused by lack of clarity on tax exempt rules?
Why feed the abuse of authority myth that is going around?
So basically what you’re saying is that it was simultaneously a plot to incriminate the IRS, and that the IRS did nothing incriminating?
Well, I’m glad we’ve gotten that all sorted out.
Don’t forget that senior IRS officials have invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating themselves, but never fear, as they’re on record as assuring us that they’ve done nothing incriminating.
I wrote what I wrote, so there is no need to rephrase what I wrote.
Now if you could respond to what I actually wrote, I will take a look at it.
And please be mindful of the fact that I did not say that ‘it was’ anything. I asked a question ‘could it be’.
Your error in interpretation is duly noted as so many are making the same mistake.
You should talk to the guy who wrote the OP. That guy has apparently rejected your suggestion.
So, why don’t you provide some evidence that it was? Anything “could be”, but why do you think this “might be”? And please, don’t conflate evidence with baseless speculation. Anyone can speculate all day long. This is a forum called GREAT DEBATES, not SILLY SPECULATIONS.
Allowing that it ‘could be’ an attempt by a couple of IRS employees who are sympathetic to the Tea Party’s cause does not make it an endorsement of knowing that is what happened. The OP believes what happened was a mistake caused by lack of clarity on the rules compounded by the Citizen’s United Case that produced a huge influx of political groups such as Karl Rove’s getting tax free status to use for politicsl campaigns.
This writer does not repeat right wing hysteria about the IRS abusing its power as many here have done.
Do you want to explain if you think the entire IRS abused its power?
So, just to be clear, you do not think this was a “False Flag attack by a couple of IRS employees to lead to mainstream Tax Revolt”? Is that correct?
I will not rest until the Dope has a “Silly Speculations” forum.
Asking a question about a probability does not require evidence but if evidence or a confession emerges then we can move speculation into the fact column can we not.
On the other hand the statement of fact going around that the IRS abused its power potentially to affect the election toward Obama has provided no evidence.
Since you have expressed sympathy with the IRS Abuse of Power CT, do you have evidence that can back up that so popular claim that you cited.
I already provided the clear reason why the speculation was false in my first response: the people who carried out the Tea Bagger harassment are already known. If either their superiors or someone in the administration had discovered in the last many months that they were actually sympathetic to the far Right, that information would be hustled out to the news media, immediately.
The fact that such silly speculation has not been seen before does not make it “original.” It simply means that one more partisan has chosen to invent silly accusations against their opponents. That is why it is “tired.” The Japanese attack the U.S. and partisans rush out to claim that the president was in on it. Islamists attack the U.S. and anti-government partisans rush out to claim that it was an inside job. Some nutcase shoots up a school and more anti-government partisans rush out to claim that it was a plot by the government.
Some idiots in the IRS use their positions to harass people on the far Right of the political spectrum while a centrist government is in power and some partisan on the Left rushes out to speculate that it was “really” a “false flag” operation carried out by secret agents of the Far Right.
This is the pattern I see. Conspiracy Theories are, by nature, “tired,” because they rely on the same themes: some partisan wants to use an event to take shots at their political opponents and invents a story in which nefarious forces are pulling strings to place the blame on someone else.
Go back and read any Conspiracy Theory thread on the SDMB. They all involve really silly claims about events and are proposed and defended by people who really have no clue about the facts. After a while, any CT will be greeted with scorn for its proponent because we have been fighting the same battles against the same odd mindset for over 16 years and we recognize that the proponents of CTs, not any questions of facts, are the problem.
So, your solution is to invent something just as silly to see if we can get a third of the population to swallow a left wing CT? Not the solution I would have proposed.
I would agree that we should look for the facts to discover at what level of authority this incident was known and authorized. I agree that the Right is going to do everything they can to lay it at Obama’s feet.
The solution to that is to find out what actually happened, not throw more silly speculation into the discussion.
You have provided NOTHING.
You showed up with a CT that “asked the question,” (in the fine tradition of Glenn Beck), while not providing a single fact on which to build an investigation or a discussion.
Where is the evidence that there was actually an agent of the political Right that even worked for the IRS. (It is no more their usual hang-out than the military is the typical home of Lefties.) Where is some indication that the Koch brothers or some similar nefarious power was spending money or even buying drinks for the bureaucrats involved?
Yeesh. Rosie O’Donnell has invested more effort in her silly claims than you have invested, here.
Will that be for those who cannot debate reasonable questions and possibilities on matters of importance?
It seems that dismissing speculative things as silly is a cop out by those who are more interested in personal attack than having a great debate.
The ‘old tired CT’ dismissal did not work, but the ‘silly’ argument puts wings on the feet of those who have little meaningful contributions to make.
Enjoy your new forum if you get one.
Re:(a) Your response to my OP question contains a crucial use of the word “if”. You have thus attempted to condemn my speculation with yours.
Re: (b) You know it was ‘used their position’ for political harassment on what basis?
I believe it was a misjudgment based upon lack of clarity after the Citizens United decision caused an influx in mostly right wing political groups seeking tax free status. Basing interviews on Tea Party Groups may have been improper but seeing how the status was for Social Outreach not political action I do not believe the actions taken were politically motivated or the work of idiots.
What basis do you call these people Idiots, Glenn?
Re:(c) I never suggested that as a solution or came close to it. What is this in response to?
It was a direct response to the line I quoted before it. You made a point of claiming that the Right has effectively created an erroneous belief based on a CT. That has no bearing on this discussion unless you are offering up your own CT as a counter to it.
Your position that you are “just asking questions” is the favored activity of Glenn Beck. It is clearly intended by Beck to dishonestly suggest things that have never actually happened with the intention of formulating another CT. (It is a practice known as “Just Asking Questions,” typically shortened to “JAQing off.”)
Since that is how you began this thread, that is how I view this discussion. Glenn should be so proud of you.