07-15-2014 12:26 PM
1,900 ... 5354555657 ...
tools
  1. A895's Avatar
    Sad, but true. Healthcare use to be included in tuition cost at many universities, but they got away from that years ago.
    Its crazy considering that college costs so much. I have a scholarship and a grant, so I don't pay for anything to do with college besides gas for my car.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    palandri likes this.
    03-06-2014 06:54 AM
  2. A895's Avatar
    Wouldn't the subsidies be enough for you to not have to pay?

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    I'll have to look into that.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Mobile Nations mobile app
    03-06-2014 06:54 AM
  3. pappy53's Avatar
    The title is a quote from Obama concerning the IRS scandal, so just a couple of observations:

    1-- Of the political groups that applied for C4 status, and were audited, 100% of the audited were conservative groups.

    2-- The official in charge of this department of the IRS at that time pleads the 5th for a second time, and had already resigned. If she has nothing to hide, why not testify and tell the truth? Reports were that her lawyer said that she would testify if given immunity from federal prosecution. Why would she need that, if there is nothing wrong?

    Just a couple of things that make me go "hmmmmm...".
    03-06-2014 07:29 AM
  4. msndrstood's Avatar
    And what about Issa's behavior towards a fellow congressman? I can only hope that at some point Issa will be at the other end of an investigation. That man is as corrupt as they come.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    03-06-2014 08:05 AM
  5. palandri's Avatar
    First off, any whiff of politics at the agency is unacceptable.

    Here's my take on the whole tax exempt status of any organization, get rid of it. It's constantly abused. So tomorrow I start the church of abortion, have a few people stop over on Sunday and suddenly with a quick 527 filing, I am legally tax exempt? How many time have we seen reporters running after the head of a tax exempt charity, which is just a front for a get rich quick scheme?

    Secondly, tax exempt organizations earnings are supposed to be used for charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. They may participate in political activities but their primary purpose must not be campaigning.

    The whole tax exempt law is a joke, get rid of it.
    03-06-2014 08:05 AM
  6. pappy53's Avatar
    And what about Issa's behavior towards a fellow congressman? I can only hope that at some point Issa will be at the other end of an investigation. That man is as corrupt as they come.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3

    Deflect much?
    plumbrich likes this.
    03-06-2014 08:18 AM
  7. pappy53's Avatar
    And what about Issa's behavior towards a fellow congressman? I can only hope that at some point Issa will be at the other end of an investigation. That man is as corrupt as they come.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    And what about Cumming's constant stonewalling of the investigation?
    How can anyone believe there is no corruption, given the 2 points that I posted? It's not rocket science.
    03-06-2014 08:20 AM
  8. msndrstood's Avatar
    Deflect much?
    Just pointing out the obvious truth. Do a little research on Issa.
    I don't know what Lois Lerner knows. Her attorney was asked if he would proffer what his client knew, he agreed. The meeting was cut short by Issa. We could have found out what she knew, why don't you ask Issa what he is afraid of?

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    03-06-2014 08:21 AM
  9. msndrstood's Avatar
    And what about Cumming's constant stonewalling of the investigation?
    How can anyone believe there is no corruption, given the 2 points that I posted? It's not rocket science.
    Examples of his stonewalling?

    As a matter of fact, Issa knew she was pleading the fifth again and he still held his kangaroo court, grandstanding much? Look up proffer.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    03-06-2014 08:23 AM
  10. pappy53's Avatar
    Just pointing out the obvious truth. Do a little research on Issa.
    I don't know what Lois Lerner knows. Her attorney was asked if he would proffer what his client knew, he agreed. The meeting was cut short by Issa. We could have found out what she knew, why don't you ask Issa what he is afraid of?

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    How are we going to find out, when she pled the 5th? Her lawyer can't disclose what she refused to testify, as far as I know.
    03-06-2014 08:25 AM
  11. msndrstood's Avatar
    How are we going to find out, when she pled the 5th? Her lawyer can't disclose what she refused to testify, as far as I know.
    Look up proffer. Her attorney was asked if he would agree to it, he said yes. Meeting adjourned anyway.

    Here ya go, to make it easy:

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/proffer-agreement/

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    03-06-2014 08:26 AM
  12. pappy53's Avatar
    Look up proffer. Her attorney was asked if he would agree to it, he said yes. Meeting adjourned anyway.

    Here ya go, to make it easy:

    Proffer Agreement Law & Legal Definition

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    He made the proffer offer in January, with the condition that she get immunity. Why does she need immunity if she is innocent?
    plumbrich likes this.
    03-06-2014 08:35 AM
  13. msndrstood's Avatar
    He made the proffer offer in January, with the condition that she get immunity. Why does she need immunity if she is innocent?
    Who knows? Why didn't Issa pursue the proffer? Then we'd all know the answer. Nevertheless, it does not excuse his unprofessional and tyrannical behavior yesterday towards a fellow colleague. What about that Freedom of Speech thing, hmm?

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    03-06-2014 08:40 AM
  14. pappy53's Avatar
    Why didn't Issa pursue the proffer? Then we'd all know the answer.
    Probably because she doesn't deserve immunity.

    Lois Lerner wants immunity in exchange for IRS testimony
    03-06-2014 08:45 AM
  15. pappy53's Avatar
    Why didn't Issa pursue the proffer? Then we'd all know the answer.
    Probably because she doesn't deserve immunity.

    Lois Lerner wants immunity in exchange for IRS testimony



    Nevertheless, it does not excuse his unprofessional and tyrannical behavior yesterday towards a fellow colleague.
    So Cummings' screaming and tirade was professional? Lol!
    03-06-2014 08:46 AM
  16. msndrstood's Avatar
    Probably because she doesn't deserve immunity.

    Lois Lerner wants immunity in exchange for IRS testimony





    So Cummings' screaming and tirade was professional? Lol!
    Well we don't know because Issa didn't follow through.

    And yes, Cumming's outburst was indeed justified. Did you see the way Issa looked down his nose at him? This isn't the first go round. Why do you think so many people have left Congress lately or are not running for re election? They are sick of the petty games and the fact that the Dems try repeatedly to bring bills to the floor of the House and Boehner refuses to allow a vote. Except when he needs the Dems` votes to save his as. Then, it's all about bipartisanship.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    03-06-2014 08:51 AM
  17. pappy53's Avatar
    Well we don't know because Issa didn't follow through.

    And yes, Cumming's outburst was indeed justified. Did you see the way Issa looked down his nose at him? This isn't the first go round. Why do you think so many people have left Congress lately or are not running for re election? They are sick of the petty games and the fact that the Dems try repeatedly to bring bills to the floor of the House and Boehner refuses to allow a vote. Except when he needs the Dems` votes to save his as. Then, it's all about bipartisanship.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    You're joking, right? It's Harry Reid who doesn't allow bills to be voted on.
    And if I were a Democrat that voted for Obamacare, I probably would be scared to run for re-election.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    03-06-2014 09:00 AM
  18. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Lets face it. This is a witch hunt. The GOP wanting nothing more than to make a witch hunt out of this and they do not give a hoot about the truth. Dems do not either but in this case the GOP do not care who they destroy. Issac action of not letting a cross happens speaks volumes. As you said if they are so sure why not let the other side try to disprove you.
    03-06-2014 09:11 AM
  19. Aquila's Avatar
    I guess it might help to have most of the relevant points all in one place.

    1. The IRS manager running this specifically said the program was consistent with their application review processes. He's a conservative, registered republican and he told Congress that the White House had nothing to do with it. IRS manager: White House not involved in reviews
    2. The initial report only talked about conservative groups because Congress only asked for records about "Tea Party" groups. IG: Audit of IRS actions limited to Tea Party groups at GOP request | TheHill
    3. The IRS reviewed applications for many different groups, not just political ones. Another nail in the IRS scandal’s coffin - Salon.com
    4. The only applications that were actually denied were liberal groups. 0 conservative groups were denied. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us...agewanted=all&
    5. The applications were targeted, were targeted because they were supposed to be reviewed to determine if the group was a political, campaign related group, or an actual social welfare organization. Several blatantly lied about their purpose ... and were eventually approved despite the falsified application for an ineligible group. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us...agewanted=all&

    All of that information has been available for 8-10 months, yet people are still talking about it as if there is some scandal to suppress the Tea Party. IMO, the only scandal is that any of the applications were approved, liberal or conservative. If your primary purpose is raising campaign funds (whether it be fore direct contribution, or for advertisements, etc), that ought to be ineligible, however the IRS determined that they don't care about information campaigns (radio, tv, flyers, etc), and are actively looking to avoid providing tax haven for illegal campaign contributions.

    Issa was already caught lying (or at least twisting the facts) on this, why would anyone care what else he has to say about it?

    Where's the corruption supposed to be hidden in all of this? The events described by the media in those early weeks didn't even happen the way they said it did, we found out it was almost the opposite and yet people keep perpetuating the lies. What's worse, is that all of this information has been covered previously in these forums.

    "The idea then was to create an atmosphere of scandal, in hopes of getting the press to place each and every new fact about the unfolding stories into that framework, with no sense of balance or perspective about how significant each new piece of information really was." - Greg Sargent, The Washington Post June 1, 2013.

    He's a liberal reporter, but that observation is spot on. This is a media created, media promoted story that was later killed by the same media, and yet people always seem to miss the word "media" in that three times, as well as the point that almost nothing abnormal actually happened and that the media has already recanted their fiction.
    03-06-2014 09:19 AM
  20. pappy53's Avatar
    Lets face it. This is a witch hunt. The GOP wanting nothing more than to make a witch hunt out of this and they do not give a hoot about the truth. Dems do not either but in this case the GOP do not care who they destroy. Issac action of not letting a cross happens speaks volumes. As you said if they are so sure why not let the other side try to disprove you.
    Dems don't want the truth to come out. That is pretty obvious, with the pleading of the 5th. And it is a fact that only conservative groups were audited. This has blown up on them, and they are trying to stonewall any way that they can.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    03-06-2014 09:19 AM
  21. Aquila's Avatar
    And it is a fact that only conservative groups were audited.
    Given that we've known this statement is false for nearly 10 months, why keep repeating it?
    03-06-2014 09:24 AM
  22. msndrstood's Avatar
    I guess it might help to have most of the relevant points all in one place.

    1. The IRS manager running this specifically said the program was consistent with their application review processes. He's a conservative, registered republican and he told Congress that the White House had nothing to do with it. IRS manager: White House not involved in reviews
    2. The initial report only talked about conservative groups because Congress only asked for records about "Tea Party" groups. IG: Audit of IRS actions limited to Tea Party groups at GOP request | TheHill
    3. The IRS reviewed applications for many different groups, not just political ones. Another nail in the IRS scandals coffin - Salon.com
    4. The only applications that were actually denied were liberal groups. 0 conservative groups were denied. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us...agewanted=all&
    5. The applications were targeted, were targeted because they were supposed to be reviewed to determine if the group was a political, campaign related group, or an actual social welfare organization. Several blatantly lied about their purpose ... and were eventually approved despite the falsified application for an ineligible group. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us...agewanted=all&

    All of that information has been available for 8-10 months, yet people are still talking about it as if there is some scandal to suppress the Tea Party. IMO, the only scandal is that any of the applications were approved, liberal or conservative. If your primary purpose is raising campaign funds (whether it be fore direct contribution, or for advertisements, etc), that ought to be ineligible, however the IRS determined that they don't care about information campaigns (radio, tv, flyers, etc), and are actively looking to avoid providing tax haven for illegal campaign contributions.

    Issa was already caught lying (or at least twisting the facts) on this, why would anyone care what else he has to say about it?

    Where's the corruption supposed to be hidden in all of this? The events described by the media in those early weeks didn't even happen the way they said it did, we found out it was almost the opposite and yet people keep perpetuating the lies. What's worse, is that all of this information has been covered previously in these forums.

    "The idea then was to create an atmosphere of scandal, in hopes of getting the press to place each and every new fact about the unfolding stories into that framework, with no sense of balance or perspective about how significant each new piece of information really was." - Greg Sargent, The Washington Post June 1, 2013.

    He's a liberal reporter, but that observation is spot on. This is a media created, media promoted story that was later killed by the same media, and yet people always seem to miss the word "media" in that three times, as well as the point that almost nothing abnormal actually happened and that the media has already recanted their fiction.
    Thanks for putting that together for us. I just didn't have the time (and honestly figured, what's the point, nobody listens) to look up those links. I don't even know why I responded to this or any other politics thread since it just goes around in circles no matter the subject. Just bored, I guess, since the Olympics are over.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    palandri likes this.
    03-06-2014 09:29 AM
  23. pappy53's Avatar
    Given that we've known this statement is false for nearly 10 months, why keep repeating it?
    Proof?
    Btw, that IRS manager was only over the Cincinnati office. It reached out farther than that.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    03-06-2014 09:36 AM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    Thanks for putting that together for us. I just didn't have the time (and honestly figured, what's the point, nobody listens) to look up those links. I don't even know why I responded to this or any other politics thread since it just goes around in circles no matter the subject. Just bored, I guess, since the Olympics are over.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    I know there are still hearings going on, but it is mostly grandstanding, as the Congress already pretty much has decline to enact any of the reforms meant to streamline this process and prevent the perception of too much subjectivity. Aside from that though, I'm trying to fathom why anyone still cares about this, given that we've known it was nonsense since last Spring... and every fact that has come out since last Spring has only reinforced that position: non-story other than how easy it is to manipulate people looking for something to get upset about.
    03-06-2014 09:37 AM
  25. pappy53's Avatar
    03-06-2014 09:40 AM
1,900 ... 5354555657 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be another category for Games?
    By Basis in forum Android Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Should I be upset about this dirt under my screen.
    By rem_kujawa in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Should I be disappointed? Screen color availability!
    By TREOpalooza in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. Should GMail be telling me how many new?
    By dgalanter in forum Verizon Droid Incredible
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 04:46 PM
  5. Should I be worried about the LED?
    By solideliquid in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD