Simple math; deduct my posts from the thread view count and I still beat your eight day old thread !
Your a fucking thick head aren't you..................
Again, thanks for the bump jerk.......................... ..........
- Whirlaway
- 05-15-2013, 02:26 PM
- Guest032516
- 05-15-2013, 02:32 PM
Simple math; deduct my posts from the thread view count and I still beat your eight day old thread !What good does deducting your posts do?
Your a fucking thick head aren't you..................
Again, thanks for the bump jerk.......................... .......... Originally Posted by Whirlaway
Your bumps artificially create the additional views, dickhead, which is what you intended. Subtracting your posts doesn't do anything to subtract all the inflated view counts.
You're like one of the desperate providers who bumps one of her own threads with pithy posts saying nothing more than "Me, too" or "Luv ya, girl!". And then you brag about your view counts.
You are useless for anythings except repetitive posts and abusing the ellipsis.
- Whirlaway
- 05-15-2013, 02:43 PM
You are the one desperate to make a point about nothing; I am posting about current events, and you are posting about me !
That about sums it up; you look stupid and small..............you whine about your own threads not being on "the front page".......now there is an ego at play...talk about narcissism...in spades !
That about sums it up; you look stupid and small..............you whine about your own threads not being on "the front page".......now there is an ego at play...talk about narcissism...in spades !
- Guest032516
- 05-15-2013, 04:00 PM
You are the one desperate to make a point about nothing; I am posting about current events, and you are posting about me ! Originally Posted by WhirlawayYou are deliberately missing the point. No one cares about you posting about current events. The problem is that you post OVER and OVER and OVER again in different threads about the same 3 or 4 subjects with only minor differences between them. You could have just have easily - and much more logically - have limited yourself to only 3 or 4 threads and then just updated those same threads each time something new comes out.
But noooooo. You have to start 25 fucking threads in order to keep everything focused on you and your propagandizing.
That about sums it up; you look stupid and small..............you whine about your own threads not being on "the front page".......now there is an ego at play...talk about narcissism...in spades ! Originally Posted by WhirlawayAgain, false.
I never said anything about my threads, you narcissistic ballsack. I said you pushed ALL threads off the first page.
Stop mischaracterizing what I say to fit your agenda, Mr. Goebbels.
- Whirlaway
- 05-15-2013, 05:17 PM
Again, you whine about my post count; here is a fucking suggestion, get your own life and post what is of interest, what floats your boat, whatever minutiae entertains you..........
Stop telling others what is acceptable and not in the Sandbox.........your quite the meddlesome nanny............
You must be irritated because your post got shuffled off the front page; that is what you have told us multiple times....which post was so near and dear to your heart NewYawker ?
And again, thanks for the bump buddy !
Stop telling others what is acceptable and not in the Sandbox.........your quite the meddlesome nanny............
You must be irritated because your post got shuffled off the front page; that is what you have told us multiple times....which post was so near and dear to your heart NewYawker ?
And again, thanks for the bump buddy !
- Whirlaway
- 05-15-2013, 05:18 PM
THE MULTIPLE FACETS OF THE IRS SCANDAL
What is commonly referred to as the IRS scandal consists of several distinct, although obviously related, elements. The scandal was brought to light by the revelation that the IRS, in evaluating nonprofits’ applications for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status, discriminated against Tea Party and other conservative groups. The IRS would routinely hold up such applications, sometimes for years, while often making irrelevant inquiries of the applicant, e.g., asking for the names of donors. At the same time, the IRS quickly and easily approved similar applications from liberal groups.
The IRS was in a position to do this in part because of the nature of the relevant tax laws. A 501(c)(4) organization, for example, can engage in political campaign activity, but that must not be the main focus of the organization. Application of these statutory standards inherently opens the door to discriminatory enforcement.
A second aspect of the IRS scandal relates to targeting conservatives in the audit process. Conservatives, especially high-profile donors to conservative causes, have long believed that they are likely to be singled out for harassment by the IRS. Anecdotally, it seems that there is considerable evidence to support this belief. Where the conservative is a wealthy businessman with a complicated tax return, it is hard to prove that an IRS audit was motivated by political malice. But what other explanation can there be for a case like that of Professor Anne Hendershott, who was targeted for an audit in 2010 after she wrote a series of articles, mostly in Catholic publications, that were critical of Obamacare. The IRS summoned Professor Hendershott to a meeting to discuss the “business expenses” associated with her writing. Hendershott reports that the IRS agent wanted to know “who was paying her” and barred her husband from attending the inquiry, even though the Hendershotts file joint returns. Hendershott says that she was so traumatized by the experience that she stopped writing about political topics, which presumably was the intended effect.
Other than motive, discriminatory audits have little or nothing to do with the agency’s review of 501(c) applications, which was the sole subject of yesterday’s Inspector General report.
A third aspect of the IRS scandal is illegal or improper leaking of confidential tax data. As we noted here, we already know that the IRS leaked pending applications for 501(c) status to a left-wing media group, that then publicized them. Yesterday another credible claim of an IRS leak emerged, when the National Organization for Marriage alleged that the IRS leaked confidential NOM data in order to injure Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign:
NOM, a pro-traditional marriage organization, claims the IRS leaked their 2008 confidential financial documents to the rival Human Rights Campaign. Those NOM documents were published on the Huffington Post on March 30, 2012. At that time, Joe Solmonese, a left-wing activist and Huffington Post contributor, was the president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Solmonese was also a 2012 Obama campaign co-chairman.
Both the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein and HRC described the leak as coming from a “whistleblower.” The Huffington Post used the document to write a story questioning former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s support for traditional marriage. The document showed Romney donated $10,000 to NOM. …
In early April 2012, NOM published documents which it said showed this leaked confidential information did not come from a “whistleblower” but “came directly from the Internal Revenue Service and was provided to NOM’s political opponents, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).” …
NOM announced Tuesday that it will sue the IRS for this alleged leak.
We also know that in 2010, Austin Goolsbee, who directed Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and later chaired his Council of Economic Advisers, smeared Koch Industries on the basis of IRS data which, if Goolsbee had accurately reported it, could only have been obtained illegally.
And there may be further aspects of the IRS scandal that have yet to emerge. In any event, if the scandal were confined to the 501(c) issue that was the subject of the original disclosures, it would be much easier for the Obama administration to get past it. That particular problem can be addressed and perhaps solved. But new revelations about discriminatory audits and leaks are likely to continue for some time, keeping the IRS scandal alive in the minds of voters.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...rs-scandal.php
What is commonly referred to as the IRS scandal consists of several distinct, although obviously related, elements. The scandal was brought to light by the revelation that the IRS, in evaluating nonprofits’ applications for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status, discriminated against Tea Party and other conservative groups. The IRS would routinely hold up such applications, sometimes for years, while often making irrelevant inquiries of the applicant, e.g., asking for the names of donors. At the same time, the IRS quickly and easily approved similar applications from liberal groups.
The IRS was in a position to do this in part because of the nature of the relevant tax laws. A 501(c)(4) organization, for example, can engage in political campaign activity, but that must not be the main focus of the organization. Application of these statutory standards inherently opens the door to discriminatory enforcement.
A second aspect of the IRS scandal relates to targeting conservatives in the audit process. Conservatives, especially high-profile donors to conservative causes, have long believed that they are likely to be singled out for harassment by the IRS. Anecdotally, it seems that there is considerable evidence to support this belief. Where the conservative is a wealthy businessman with a complicated tax return, it is hard to prove that an IRS audit was motivated by political malice. But what other explanation can there be for a case like that of Professor Anne Hendershott, who was targeted for an audit in 2010 after she wrote a series of articles, mostly in Catholic publications, that were critical of Obamacare. The IRS summoned Professor Hendershott to a meeting to discuss the “business expenses” associated with her writing. Hendershott reports that the IRS agent wanted to know “who was paying her” and barred her husband from attending the inquiry, even though the Hendershotts file joint returns. Hendershott says that she was so traumatized by the experience that she stopped writing about political topics, which presumably was the intended effect.
Other than motive, discriminatory audits have little or nothing to do with the agency’s review of 501(c) applications, which was the sole subject of yesterday’s Inspector General report.
A third aspect of the IRS scandal is illegal or improper leaking of confidential tax data. As we noted here, we already know that the IRS leaked pending applications for 501(c) status to a left-wing media group, that then publicized them. Yesterday another credible claim of an IRS leak emerged, when the National Organization for Marriage alleged that the IRS leaked confidential NOM data in order to injure Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign:
NOM, a pro-traditional marriage organization, claims the IRS leaked their 2008 confidential financial documents to the rival Human Rights Campaign. Those NOM documents were published on the Huffington Post on March 30, 2012. At that time, Joe Solmonese, a left-wing activist and Huffington Post contributor, was the president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Solmonese was also a 2012 Obama campaign co-chairman.
Both the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein and HRC described the leak as coming from a “whistleblower.” The Huffington Post used the document to write a story questioning former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s support for traditional marriage. The document showed Romney donated $10,000 to NOM. …
In early April 2012, NOM published documents which it said showed this leaked confidential information did not come from a “whistleblower” but “came directly from the Internal Revenue Service and was provided to NOM’s political opponents, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).” …
NOM announced Tuesday that it will sue the IRS for this alleged leak.
We also know that in 2010, Austin Goolsbee, who directed Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and later chaired his Council of Economic Advisers, smeared Koch Industries on the basis of IRS data which, if Goolsbee had accurately reported it, could only have been obtained illegally.
And there may be further aspects of the IRS scandal that have yet to emerge. In any event, if the scandal were confined to the 501(c) issue that was the subject of the original disclosures, it would be much easier for the Obama administration to get past it. That particular problem can be addressed and perhaps solved. But new revelations about discriminatory audits and leaks are likely to continue for some time, keeping the IRS scandal alive in the minds of voters.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...rs-scandal.php
- CJ7
- 05-15-2013, 05:19 PM
THE MULTIPLE FACETS OF THE IRS SCANDAL
What is commonly referred to as the IRS scandal consists of several distinct, although obviously related, elements. The scandal was brought to light by the revelation that the IRS, in evaluating nonprofits’ applications for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status, discriminated against Tea Party and other conservative groups. The IRS would routinely hold up such applications, sometimes for years, while often making irrelevant inquiries of the applicant, e.g., asking for the names of donors. At the same time, the IRS quickly and easily approved similar applications from liberal groups.
The IRS was in a position to do this in part because of the nature of the relevant tax laws. A 501(c)(4) organization, for example, can engage in political campaign activity, but that must not be the main focus of the organization. Application of these statutory standards inherently opens the door to discriminatory enforcement.
A second aspect of the IRS scandal relates to targeting conservatives in the audit process. Conservatives, especially high-profile donors to conservative causes, have long believed that they are likely to be singled out for harassment by the IRS. Anecdotally, it seems that there is considerable evidence to support this belief. Where the conservative is a wealthy businessman with a complicated tax return, it is hard to prove that an IRS audit was motivated by political malice. But what other explanation can there be for a case like that of Professor Anne Hendershott, who was targeted for an audit in 2010 after she wrote a series of articles, mostly in Catholic publications, that were critical of Obamacare. The IRS summoned Professor Hendershott to a meeting to discuss the “business expenses” associated with her writing. Hendershott reports that the IRS agent wanted to know “who was paying her” and barred her husband from attending the inquiry, even though the Hendershotts file joint returns. Hendershott says that she was so traumatized by the experience that she stopped writing about political topics, which presumably was the intended effect.
Other than motive, discriminatory audits have little or nothing to do with the agency’s review of 501(c) applications, which was the sole subject of yesterday’s Inspector General report.
A third aspect of the IRS scandal is illegal or improper leaking of confidential tax data. As we noted here, we already know that the IRS leaked pending applications for 501(c) status to a left-wing media group, that then publicized them. Yesterday another credible claim of an IRS leak emerged, when the National Organization for Marriage alleged that the IRS leaked confidential NOM data in order to injure Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign:
NOM, a pro-traditional marriage organization, claims the IRS leaked their 2008 confidential financial documents to the rival Human Rights Campaign. Those NOM documents were published on the Huffington Post on March 30, 2012. At that time, Joe Solmonese, a left-wing activist and Huffington Post contributor, was the president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Solmonese was also a 2012 Obama campaign co-chairman.
Both the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein and HRC described the leak as coming from a “whistleblower.” The Huffington Post used the document to write a story questioning former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s support for traditional marriage. The document showed Romney donated $10,000 to NOM. …
In early April 2012, NOM published documents which it said showed this leaked confidential information did not come from a “whistleblower” but “came directly from the Internal Revenue Service and was provided to NOM’s political opponents, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).” …
NOM announced Tuesday that it will sue the IRS for this alleged leak.
We also know that in 2010, Austin Goolsbee, who directed Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and later chaired his Council of Economic Advisers, smeared Koch Industries on the basis of IRS data which, if Goolsbee had accurately reported it, could only have been obtained illegally.
And there may be further aspects of the IRS scandal that have yet to emerge. In any event, if the scandal were confined to the 501(c) issue that was the subject of the original disclosures, it would be much easier for the Obama administration to get past it. That particular problem can be addressed and perhaps solved. But new revelations about discriminatory audits and leaks are likely to continue for some time, keeping the IRS scandal alive in the minds of voters.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...rs-scandal.php Originally Posted by Whirlaway
Ineffective management at the Internal Revenue Service led to certain groups being singled out for more than 18 months based on their names or mission statements, according to a Treasury Inspector General report obtained by ABC News.
IRS officials told IG investigators that their actions were not influenced by any outside officials or agencies. The use of inappropriate criteria to screen applicants resulted in significant delays for groups applying for tax exempt status, and also allowed unnecessary requests for information, the report found
- Whirlaway
- 05-15-2013, 05:21 PM
Have you read the Treasury Inspector Report?
It is a fucking joke of an investigation................. the 58 page report has almost no detail on who, what, when, and why !
The report doesn't even detail WHO !
What kind of report on a scandal doesn't even name the actor(S) ???????????????????
Don't try to blow smoke up our asses with your stupid insights !
It is a fucking joke of an investigation................. the 58 page report has almost no detail on who, what, when, and why !
The report doesn't even detail WHO !
What kind of report on a scandal doesn't even name the actor(S) ???????????????????
Don't try to blow smoke up our asses with your stupid insights !
"Obtained by ABC News",,,the fucking report is available on line for you to read yourself idiot....If you are so fucking informed on the report; why didn't you provide us with a link to it ?
Ineffective management at the Internal Revenue Service led to certain groups being singled out for more than 18 months based on their names or mission statements, according to a Treasury Inspector General report obtained by ABC News.
IRS officials told IG investigators that their actions were not influenced by any outside officials or agencies. The use of inappropriate criteria to screen applicants resulted in significant delays for groups applying for tax exempt status, and also allowed unnecessary requests for information, the report found Originally Posted by CJ7
- CJ7
- 05-15-2013, 05:32 PM
Have you read the Treasury Inspector Report?snck
It is a fucking joke of an investigation................. the 58 page report has almost no detail on who, what, when, and why !
The report doesn't even detail WHO !
What kind of report on a scandal doesn't even name the actor(S) ???????????????????
Don't try to blow smoke up our asses with your stupid insights !
"Obtained by ABC News",,,the fucking report is available on line for you to read yourself idiot....If you are so fucking informed on the report; why didn't you provide us with a link to it ? Originally Posted by Whirlaway
- Guest032516
- 05-15-2013, 05:35 PM
Again, you whine about my post count; Originally Posted by WhirlawayYou must be illiterate. For the umpteenth time, I don't care about your post count. I criticized your THREAD count. In particular, your REDUNDANT thread count.
You must be irritated because your post got shuffled off the front page; that is what you have told us multiple times.. Originally Posted by WhirlawayOnce again, you distort, you pathetic little liar. I never said anything about MY post getting pushed off the front page. I said you are pushing EVERYBODY's threads off the first page. There are lots of interesting threads for people to read. They're just harder to find because of all of your narcissistic swill.
..which post was so near and dear to your heart NewYawker ? Originally Posted by WhirlawayNone Whirlagay.
Unlike you, I don't have any posts - or subjects - that are so near and dear to my heart that I have to flood the Sandbox with them.
- Whirlaway
- 05-15-2013, 05:49 PM
Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 05/14/2013
Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”
Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?
Four Pinocchios
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 05/14/2013
Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”
Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?
Four Pinocchios
- Guest032516
- 05-15-2013, 05:58 PM
Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’This is one of your IRS threads, shithead. Not one of your Benghazi threads.
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 05/14/2013
Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”
Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”? Originally Posted by Whirlaway
You post so many redundant threads not even YOU can keep track of them.
- Guest032516
- 05-15-2013, 05:59 PM
Oh, by the way:
============================== ==================
Here is the link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...the_facts.html
Here is the sage advice from Charles Krauthammer:
"But the one advice I give to Republicans is stop calling it a huge scandal. Stop saying it's a Watergate. Stop saying it's Iran Contra. Let the facts speak for themselves. Have a special committee, a select committee. The facts will speak for themselves. Pile them on but don't exaggerate, don't run ads about Hillary. It feed the narrative for the other side that it's only a political event. It's not. Just be quiet and present the facts."
Of course, this isn't something a narcissistic ballsack like Whirlagay would EVER have the patience or intellect to do.
Because it is so much more emotionally fulfilling for that troll to start 28 threads on the subject and talk about "Worst. Scandal. Ever."
============================== ===============
============================== ==================
Here is the link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...the_facts.html
Here is the sage advice from Charles Krauthammer:
"But the one advice I give to Republicans is stop calling it a huge scandal. Stop saying it's a Watergate. Stop saying it's Iran Contra. Let the facts speak for themselves. Have a special committee, a select committee. The facts will speak for themselves. Pile them on but don't exaggerate, don't run ads about Hillary. It feed the narrative for the other side that it's only a political event. It's not. Just be quiet and present the facts."
Of course, this isn't something a narcissistic ballsack like Whirlagay would EVER have the patience or intellect to do.
Because it is so much more emotionally fulfilling for that troll to start 28 threads on the subject and talk about "Worst. Scandal. Ever."
============================== ===============
- Whirlaway
- 05-15-2013, 06:01 PM
Nope; Obama lies about Benghazi, he can lie about the IRS.........starting with his claim,
"I just found out"...........Now even John Stewart buys Obama's bullshit any longer!
"I just found out"...........Now even John Stewart buys Obama's bullshit any longer!
- i'va biggen
- 05-15-2013, 06:12 PM
snick x 100