If you want to discuss something other than “False Flag”, start a new thread. This thread is about whether or not the recent IRS scandal was a False Flag ginned up by right-wingers to incite a tax revolt. We are still waiting for your evidence in support of your OP. An OP which, apparently, you don’t believe.
Hint: When every single person tells you you’re wrong, it’s not because they aren’t reading properly.
Double Hint: When you disagree with your own OP, don’t expect anything but ridicule.
John…May I call you John? Cool, thanks. You’re doing a credible–and apparently thankless–job in addressing the issue(s) in this thread. But, as a friend (albeit merely a TMer friend), I feel compelled to say that you just may be missing something of great import here. The OP isn’t just JAQing off. Se/he/it is posturing in a similar vein as the WONJCTs themselves do. In this case, though, the posturing is a one-upmanship of said WONJCTs. You see, at the bottom of the thinking ladder is those of us who don’t accept the incredible, the stupendously inane stupidity of the CTs posed. Next above is the WONJCTs themselves, those who are supposedly aware of the great variety of CTs which somehow are always interconnected. Finally, you have the OP. Yes, she/he/it has risen above the fray. You see, she/he/it is simply pointing out to the rest of us lowly sods that the CTs actually may have a point, they may actualy be onto something. And those of us who don’t accept the JAQing? Well, we obviously can’t accept s/h/it. And for some odd reason, that makes us the fools.
Well, yeah. I think we all know that. For every CT on the right, there must be an equal and opposite CT on the left. Or so some people think.
Newton said it: for every actionary, there is an equal and opposite reactionary.
Newton. Newt Gingrich. Coincidence? I think not!
I have to admit, though, I’m now not sure if the OP is seriously suggesting the IRS snafu (such as it was - I’m still having trouble seeing it as actual abuse; it strikes me more as an unfortunate choice of phrasing in an episode of simple eagerness) was a false-flag operation, or if some people might believe it was.
I initially thought the idea of a false-flag was intended as a parody of a conspiracy theory, something absurd on its face to mock conspiracy theorists, like suggesting the IRS itself is run by alien mole-people (as opposed to other government departments run by domestic mole-people), but now I don’t know what the OP is driving at.
I think it’s rationalization to grasp any straw to distract oneself from the possibility that the IRS scandal is what it plainly is.
Well if I make a categorical statement that something cannot be, then its usually easier for you to prove that I am wrong than for me to prove that I am right.
Its not a fair question.
It is so close to being beyond the realm of possibility that you can’t tell the difference.
Irrelevant.
The Irs wasn’t abusing its authority, it was failing to apply it as impartially as it should have. Frankly, it needs to apply a lot more authority in the area.
No its not.
And what it is is no longer a mistake. The employees who the administration attempted to throw under the bus have testified that they got orders from DC and they knew it was wrong when they were doing it. One even started looking for a new job.
But on the bright side, if it’s not a snafu, it could be the conspiracy the OP fears.
Well, I can see where they had orders - to enforce the 501©(4) regulations that grew out of Citizens United - but did they have orders (from who?) to specifically target conservative groups, or just groups who might be more “political” minded than “social welfare” minded, assuming such vague terms could be demarcated?
I’m still inclined to sympathy for the IRS agents who had to enforce a badly-written law pushed by short-sighted pols.
They had orders to target certain applications, they did not come up with the illegal guidelines themselves. They also did not come up with the intrusive, illegal questions by themselves.
While I don’t think there’s any grand conspiracy going on, the small conspiracies where low level employees are thrown under the bus just for following orders is quite common, and very likely in this case. It probably doesn’t go up to the President, but it probably implicates two very important IRS officials who it will actually hurt the President to have to fire. Which is why they aren’t fired yet.
I see Darrell Issa is claiming Washington involvement, but I’ll wait for some evidence and preferably actual indictments.
The evidence is the interviews being conducted. And common sense. IRS employees cannot go rogue, nor can you just “mess up” and mistakenly target conservative groups.
I don’t think they were mistakenly targeting conservative groups. Or more accurately, they were targeting groups that for the most part were conservative. I suppose there might be some liberal groups with “Tea Party” or some such in their names, or at least I wouldn’t rule it out.
And anybody can “go rogue” in the sense of exceeding one’s authority or abusing one’s discretion, assuming they have authority and discretion in the first place. I’m just not sure anyone in this situation actually did, or did to an extent that would warrant more than a wrist-slap if the political situation was more sane and less toxic.
I’m also not sure what evidence is implied by interviews in and of themselves, unless it’s evidence that interviews are taking place, which is rather tautological. What’s the specific content of the interviews that Issa is drawing conclusions about?
I don’t know what your common sense is telling you. Mine is advising a “wait and see” stance.
Oh definitely. My common sense only told me that the administrations’ attempt to just blame low level employees in Cincinnati was dishonest on two levels: first, low level IRS employees would not be able to get away with what they were doing, and second, Cincinnati is the place where the IRS non-profits division is. It would be like blaming Wal-mart malfeasance on “just some low level employees in Bentonville.”
I wasn’t under the impression that what were doing was so Machiavellian in it deviousness and complexity that it needed input from higher levels.
"Here’s a list of 501©(4) tax-exemption applicants. Send an detailed questionnaire to all the ones with names that use terms like ‘Tea Party’, ‘Fuck Taxes’ or ‘The League to keep the White House Crypto-Kenyan Free’ and such.’’
Hardly a plan of Lex Lutheran multifariousness.
That’s not the devious part. The devious part is how they managed to avoid accountability: slow walk an investigation until after the election, and of course the investigation reveals “rogue employees”.
If the issue had been addressed promptly, it would have come out before the election. The targeting started in 2010, the complaints about the targeting started immediately after, but it took until after the President was safely reelected to finish the investigation? How convenient.
Have to admit though, the OP isn’t crazy. If you ask the “who benefits” question, it’s pretty clear that my side gets a huge bonanza from this. Joe Scarborough, who favors background checks for gun owners, now says he’s not sure because the government has proved they can’t be trusted with private information. A panelist from the Huffington Post agreed, saying, “This feeds the notion that government is corrupt or incompetent”. Well, yeah. Which discredits the entire enterprise, not just the IRS.
That’s why Republicans aren’t pouncing on this as greedily as with the Benghazi thing. This is much bigger for us than just hurting a President. This can discredit an ideology.
Considering that this is coming from someone who spent several pages in the Benghazi thread arguing that mid-level functionaries can and DO “go rogue”, it’s clear that you’re just grasping at straws here.
Mid-level, yes. Lowest level employees who aren’t allowed to show initiative? No. What those employees did would have gotten them fired if they hadn’t been following orders.
And I don’t know who failed to obey the President’s orders to save those people, or if he even gave those orders. They won’t tell us what he was doing during the attack. It’s some big secret.
Actually I am posing a ‘what if’ question about the potential escalation of a tax revolt by right wing anti-government Obama haters with a mention of the irony of What If this current scandal mongering was started by a couple of the right wingers themselves.
I did mention what I believe happened in the IRS offices early in this thread but no one by that time cares since T&D had a knee jerk CT reaction and personally attacked me by linking me to Glenn Beck.
If people want to jump on a posters intent over a choice of words then questions should be addressed to the writer rather than jumping to what I see as a hysterical conclusion.
That’s it.
Now has anyone seen or heard the anti-IRS fever on the right and would even consider that the establishment Republicans could lose what little control they have of their right wing nut jobs like Glenn Beck and Mark Levin and see the possibilty of a large scale tax revolt starting to emerge and taking on a course of its own?