LadyJazzer wrote: And your slanted media continues to gen up lies, phony "scandals", and laughable conspiracies to the point that no one pays any attention, except the usual low-intelligence wingnuts.
Give it up. If this was a republican administration, you'd be all over this like a pit bull on a raw steak. Since it's democrats, they get a pass for this crap from you.
This administration can do no wrong in your eyes, we get that.
And we don't care anymore.
I just wish Fred would quit pushing on her. He may be having fun, but I get kinda bored with the game.
Yep, like two yapping poodles on either side of the fence barking at each other all day, every day, and not listening to anything but partisan blogs, psycho-babble, and daily beltway political junkie outrage news.
Gets boring, annoying, and about as interesting as watching paint dry.
.......
Fred is Red, Jazzer is Blue, neither of them, has a flippin Clue. -LOL 6-24-2014
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
The IRS just has to pay a big fine for leaking donors and other info. So they will leak people's private info but refuse to give Congress info about their crimes.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: The IRS just has to pay a big fine for leaking donors and other info.
Really?...You mean the guys that broke the law, then tried to sue in court and not only lost but got blistered by the judge?
"...per NewsVine...."
“In yet another stunning legal defeat for the National Organization For Marriage, a federal district court judge has issued a scathing ruling against NOM in their case suing the IRS over the accidental and inadvertent disclosure of a tax form that exposed the names and dollar amounts of NOM’s donors.
“
United States District Court Judge James C. Cacheris in his Tuesday ruling against NOM used terms like, “NOM has failed to produce a shred of proof,” NOM’s argument “misses the mark,” is “unconvincing,” “is unpersuasive,” and “[t]o find that NOM could prevail from this scintilla of evidence … is not appropriate.”
...per Fred Karger...somewhere....
In 2007 and 2008, its first two years of existence, NOM never bothered to file any tax returns with the IRS. Its leaders think that they are above the law. Several people and I filed multiple complaints with the IRS to investigate NOM for this. Each subsequent year, NOM has either been late or filed at least two extensions on its tax returns. NOM is clearly trying to keep all its financial information secret. This is illegal
if you are a 501(c)(3) or a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization like NOM.
Gee, would that be who you are referring to? If it is, the question "is it fair?" has already been answered by a judge, adjudicated in the courts, and the extremists who think they are above the law were rightfully busted.
So, you're saying the IRS has to pay a fine in a case that NOM not only lost, but was laughed out of court? Really?...You got a SOURCE or LINK for that?
Gee, then if you're discussing "The IRS just has to pay a big fine for leaking donors and other info" then it's total bullsh*t, and you have to start another thread...
In the meantime, I'll respond to your lies by asking you to either come up with a SOURCE for them, or shut up...Or, of course, you can just admit you're a liar....
LadyJazzer wrote: Speaking of "primary ballots"...
I'm pulling for Tancredo today! Hope you guys get your wish!!
You can stop hoping.
Faced with the choice of a far-right candidate or a more moderate mainstream pick, Colorado Republicans chose the latter Tuesday, selecting former Congressman Bob Beauprez as the party's gubernatorial nominee.
..."The Government Accountability Office investigated VA hospitals nationwide and reported in July 2013 that doctors get bonuses regardless of work quality.
A radiologist cited for mistakes reading mammograms got an $8,216 bonus, even though a professional standards board deemed him unqualified to continue his current duties. A surgeon suspended for 14 days for abandoning a patient on the operating table and leaving the medical center, with only unsupervised residents to complete the procedure, still got a $11,189 annual bonus.
Novel Concern At IRS
But it's not just the VA. Every federal department has this putrid culture.
The Internal Revenue Service doles out bonuses to employees guilty of illegal drug use, unemployment benefits fraud, even tax evasion. A Treasury Inspector General's report released April 22 states that "with few exceptions, the IRS does not consider tax compliance or other misconduct when issuing performance awards or most other types of awards."...
FredHayek wrote: The IRS just has to pay a big fine for leaking donors and other info.
Really?...You mean the guys that broke the law, then tried to sue in court and not only lost but got blistered by the judge?
"...per NewsVine...."
“In yet another stunning legal defeat for the National Organization For Marriage, a federal district court judge has issued a scathing ruling against NOM in their case suing the IRS over the accidental and inadvertent disclosure of a tax form that exposed the names and dollar amounts of NOM’s donors.
“
United States District Court Judge James C. Cacheris in his Tuesday ruling against NOM used terms like, “NOM has failed to produce a shred of proof,” NOM’s argument “misses the mark,” is “unconvincing,” “is unpersuasive,” and “[t]o find that NOM could prevail from this scintilla of evidence … is not appropriate.”
...per Fred Karger...somewhere....
In 2007 and 2008, its first two years of existence, NOM never bothered to file any tax returns with the IRS. Its leaders think that they are above the law. Several people and I filed multiple complaints with the IRS to investigate NOM for this. Each subsequent year, NOM has either been late or filed at least two extensions on its tax returns. NOM is clearly trying to keep all its financial information secret. This is illegal
if you are a 501(c)(3) or a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization like NOM.
Gee, would that be who you are referring to? If it is, the question "is it fair?" has already been answered by a judge, adjudicated in the courts, and the extremists who think they are above the law were rightfully busted.
So, you're saying the IRS has to pay a fine in a case that NOM not only lost, but was laughed out of court? Really?...You got a SOURCE or LINK for that?
Don't you hate using sources that only cover half the story?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
