PDA

View Full Version : IRS officials knew of agents’ tea party targeting in 2011



Tak
05-12-2013, 02:14 AM
............

Banned
05-12-2013, 05:23 AM
If the allegations are true, they should have known better than to get all hyped up over the Tea Party. The Tea Party isn't *overthrowing* anything. They couldn't overthrow their way out of a paper bag.

PickYourBattles
05-12-2013, 06:22 AM
Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul say hello.

tiredretiredE7
05-12-2013, 11:10 AM
If the allegations are true, they should have known better than to get all hyped up over the Tea Party. The Tea Party isn't *overthrowing* anything. They couldn't overthrow their way out of a paper bag.

Really? 2010 congressional elections ring a bell?

Tak
05-12-2013, 01:58 PM
Abuse of govt, or simple partisanship by a govt agency?

VFFTSGT
05-12-2013, 02:56 PM
Abuse of govt, or simple partisanship by a govt agency?

Both......

Bunch
05-12-2013, 03:58 PM
Abuse of govt, or simple partisanship by a govt agency?

I think is even more dangerous than those 2. I think what the IRS is doing is all about self preservation. When an government agency thinks that is above the people who they are supposed to serve and that they can oppress people to their agenda that sets a very dangerous precedent and it should be stop and heads should roll on this.

After all what the Tea Party represents? Like it or not they represent an existential threat to the IRS. And the IRS responded back by intimidating people who share that Tea Party philosophy. Today is the TP being targeted tomorrow can be anyone whom the IRS deems a threat against them. Very dangerous path is you ask me.

Tak
05-12-2013, 04:05 PM
I think is even more dangerous than those 2. I think what the IRS is doing is all about self preservation. When an government agency thinks that is above the people who they are supposed to serve and that they can oppress people to their agenda that sets a very dangerous precedent and it should be stop and heads should roll on this.

After all what the Tea Party represents? Like it or not they represent an existential threat to the IRS. And the IRS responded back by intimidating people who share that Tea Party philosophy. Today is the TP being targeted tomorrow can be anyone whom the IRS deems a threat against them. Very dangerous path is you ask me.

HEADS WILL ROLL, LIKE BENGHAZI!!!

efmbman
05-12-2013, 04:33 PM
Abuse of govt, or simple partisanship by a govt agency?

In most instances, those two terms are interchangeable. In my opinion, partisanship is abuse of government.

VFFTSGT
05-12-2013, 04:55 PM
I think is even more dangerous than those 2. I think what the IRS is doing is all about self preservation.Whenan government agency thinks that is above the people who they are supposed to serve and that they can oppress people to their agenda that sets a very dangerous precedent and it should be stop and heads should roll on this.

After all what the Tea Party represents? Like it or not they represent an existential threat to the IRS. And the IRS responded back by intimidating people who share that Tea Party philosophy. Today is the TP being targeted tomorrow can be anyone whom the IRS deems a threat against them. Very dangerous path is you ask me.

This is true and holds true for every government agency, which is why our government is an alphabet soup...

From the Secret Service to the ATF and many other government agencies that long went obsolete and they found new purposes for themselves for self-preservation. Reagan was right when we said a government program is the closest thing we will come to eternity on this earth.


The Secret Service's initial responsibility was to investigate counterfeiting of U.S. currency, which was rampant following the U.S. Civil War. The agency then evolved into the United States' first domestic intelligence and counterintelligence agency. Many of the agency's missions were later taken over by subsequent agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Internal Revenue Service (IRS).


The ATF was formerly part of the United States Department of the Treasury, having been formed in 1886 as the "Revenue Laboratory" within the Treasury Department's Bureau of Internal Revenue. The history of ATF can be subsequently traced to the time of the revenuers or "revenoors" and the Bureau of Prohibition, which was formed as a unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1920, was made an independent agency within the Treasury Department in 1927, was transferred to the Justice Department in 1930, and became, briefly, a division of the FBI in 1933.


In July 1862, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln and Congress created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted a temporary income tax to pay war expenses.

Income taxes evolved, but in 1894 the Supreme Court declared the Income Tax of 1894 unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.. The federal government scrambled to raise money.

Thus come the Income Tax Amendment and the IRS...


The 1901 assassination of President McKinley created an urgent perception that America was under threat from anarchists. The Department of Justice and the Department of Labor had been keeping records on anarchists for years, but President Theodore Roosevelt wanted more power to monitor them.

President Roosevelt instructed Attorney General Charles Bonaparte to create an autonomous investigative service that would report only to the Attorney General.

The USA PATRIOT Act increased the powers allotted to the FBI, especially in wiretapping and monitoring of Internet activity. One of the most controversial provisions of the act is the so-called sneak and peek provision, granting the FBI powers to search a house while the residents are away, and not requiring them to notify the residents for several weeks afterwards.


Eleven months earlier, in 1944, William J. Donovan, the OSS's creator, proposed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt to create a new organization directly supervised by the President: "which will procure intelligence both by overt and covert methods and will at the same time provide intelligence guidance, determine national intelligence objectives, and correlate the intelligence material collected by all government agencies.

If you remember, DHS was created to streamline the intelligence from all government agencies too...


In a special message to Congress on December 19, 1945, President Harry Truman proposed creation of a unified department of state defense, citing both wasteful military spending and inter-departmental conflicts. Deliberations in Congress went on for months focusing heavily on the role of the military in society and the threat of granting too much military power to the executive.

Because we don't have wasteful military spending and inter-departmental conflicts today...

Tak
05-12-2013, 05:08 PM
This is true and holds true for every government agency, which is why our government is an alphabet soup...

From the Secret Service to the ATF and many other government agencies that long went obsolete and they found new purposes for themselves for self-preservation. Reagan was right when we said a government program is the closest thing we will come to eternity on this earth.







Thus come the Income Tax Amendment and the IRS...





If you remember, DHS was created to streamline the intelligence from all government agencies too...



Because we don't have wasteful military spending and inter-departmental conflicts today...

No need for brevity, next time elaborate please.

DocBones
05-12-2013, 05:22 PM
Hmmm...since I got my CCW license, the State Revenuers hit me up each year with some sort of claim against me, that I have had to prove untrue. So...state level taxers are not exempt from blaming, either.

Banned
05-12-2013, 08:24 PM
Really? 2010 congressional elections ring a bell?

Okay. So what did the Tea Party "overthrow" in the 2010 election - that is, before they slunk back into irrelevancy?

Banned
05-13-2013, 06:17 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/971614_610272275659383_876432170_n.jpg

TJMAC77SP
05-13-2013, 10:47 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/971614_610272275659383_876432170_n.jpg

Gonna save this one for a rainy day.

Tak
05-13-2013, 01:16 PM
The Tea Party and 'patriot' groups weren't the only ones facing additional scrutiny by the IRS — documents obtained by Fox News show the agency also targeted groups focused on government spending, the Constitution and more.

SomeRandomGuy
05-13-2013, 01:52 PM
The Tea Party and 'patriot' groups weren't the only ones facing additional scrutiny by the IRS — documents obtained by Fox News show the agency also targeted groups focused on government spending, the Constitution and more.

This is not new. I remember Bill O'Reilly talking about this all the way back in 2002. He was complaining because he was getting audited all the time and people like Jesse Jackson almost never got audited while Clinton was president.

http://rense.com/general24/irs.htm

CYBERFX1024
05-13-2013, 01:59 PM
This is not new. I remember Bill O'Reilly talking about this all the way back in 2002. He was complaining because he was getting audited all the time and people like Jesse Jackson almost never got audited while Clinton was president.http://rense.com/general24/irs.htm

Of course, Liberals and Democrats hardly ever get audited. But when they do they claim racism. The major discrepancies that the audit finds nothing happens to those people. Just look at Rep. Rangel

Bunch
05-13-2013, 02:23 PM
Of course, Liberals and Democrats hardly ever get audited. But when they do they claim racism. The major discrepancies that the audit finds nothing happens to those people. Just look at Rep. Rangel

...wrong!!


Democrats denounce IRS audit of NAACP
N.Y. House member tells Bush to `call off the dogs' investigating rights group
October 30, 2004|By Kelly Brewington | Kelly Brewington,SUN STAFF
NAACP leadership continued to denounce an Internal Revenue Service audit of the Baltimore-based civil rights group yesterday, while three members of Congress challenged the IRS to drop the investigation.

A letter sent yesterday to IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson by three House Democrats - Charles B. Rangel of New York, Pete Stark of California and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan - demanded that Everson "publicly, specifically and immediately repudiate the recent actions of the IRS taken against the NAACP."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-10-30/news/0410300223_1_naacp-bond-tax-exempt-status

Tak
05-13-2013, 02:29 PM
Benghazi is not in Iraq.

71Fish
05-13-2013, 02:32 PM
Okay. So what did the Tea Party "overthrow" in the 2010 election - that is, before they slunk back into irrelevancy?

For you to call the Tea Party irrelevant tells me you called the Occupy movement relevant. Who is still making news?

CYBERFX1024
05-13-2013, 02:43 PM
...wrong!!
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-10-30/news/0410300223_1_naacp-bond-tax-exempt-status


How am I wrong? Just because the IRS went after 1 group under Bush, they accused him of "calling out the dogs". The IRS targeted MULTIPLE groups this time around that had anything to do remotely with being a conservative.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/07/rangel_agonistes.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/22/charles-rangel-censure-lawsuit-ethics-boehner/2104781/

CYBERFX1024
05-13-2013, 02:46 PM
For you to call the Tea Party irrelevant tells me you called the Occupy movement relevant. Who is still making news?

Hey Joe the last time I have heard or seen anything by the Occupy movement was when I went to the Rose Bowl parade. They had a unofficial float that followed the actual parade showing people who got foreclosed on.
The Tea Party is still relevant and you will see that next year in 2014 when we take back the Senate and solidify the House.

SomeRandomGuy
05-13-2013, 03:01 PM
Hey Joe the last time I have heard or seen anything by the Occupy movement was when I went to the Rose Bowl parade. They had a unofficial float that followed the actual parade showing people who got foreclosed on.
The Tea Party is still relevant and you will see that next year in 2014 when we take back the Senate and solidify the House.

It would not surprise me at all if the Tea Party cleans up in the mid term elections. That is basically their M.O. No one really cares about the mid term elections except radicals and the Tea Party have far more politically active radicals than other groups. My guess is the Tea Party will have their base seriously pissed at Obama by next year meanwhile most Obama supporters could care less because they never vote in mid-term elections.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-13-2013, 03:08 PM
...wrong!!



http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-10-30/news/0410300223_1_naacp-bond-tax-exempt-status

So, one liberal group gets audited is equal to scores of groups with either the word "Patriot" or "TEA party" being singled out?

CYBERFX1024
05-13-2013, 03:09 PM
It would not surprise me at all if the Tea Party cleans up in the mid term elections. That is basically their M.O. No one really cares about the mid term elections except radicals and the Tea Party have far more politically active radicals than other groups. My guess is the Tea Party will have their base seriously pissed at Obama by next year meanwhile most Obama supporters could care less because they never vote in mid-term elections.

You are correct. It's all about who can bring out the most people in the midterm elections. Just like you are saying the Tea Party are far more active than almost any other group no matter what side they are on. But the Democrats usually don't do well with actual real live voters during midterm elections. 2006 was a exception because everybody was pissed off at Bush at that time, and that was the rallying cry.
That is why Obama has been trying so hard to push through legislation that is beneficial for him the first part of this year. Because he knows the closer they get to midterm elections the more the Democrats won't listen to him in hopes of reelection.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-13-2013, 03:13 PM
It would not surprise me at all if the Tea Party cleans up in the mid term elections. That is basically their M.O. No one really cares about the mid term elections except radicals and the Tea Party have far more politically active radicals than other groups. My guess is the Tea Party will have their base seriously pissed at Obama by next year meanwhile most Obama supporters could care less because they never vote in mid-term elections.

So only "radicals" take an interest in voting for the primary law makers in the government? All the house of rep and a third of the senate are less important than the POTUS and those who see these are the elections that mean the most are considered radicals?

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-13-2013, 03:23 PM
Yeah your probably right. But for the NAACP being was not being "audited" they were being TARGETED, same as is happening here. Either way this is just a horrendous case of government gone wild. Everyone involved with this needs to go, and I dont mean fired, I mean jail.

Was this the first time the NAACP was audited? Should they never be audited like they are above the possibility of corruption? Kind of makes me wonder why people would fight so hard to protect something that should be clean if it only happens once every 10-20 years. But then again, we still need to audit the FED.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-13-2013, 03:25 PM
Maybe Radicals is the wrong word. The point I was making is that people who are labeled "radicals" by the media are the groups who actually turn out for mid-term elections. Here is a chart that shows turnout of presidential elections versus mid-term. The only year the democrats did well was 2006 (cause by the damage Bush had done). Other than that republicans tend to do better because they have more "radicals" or "diahards"

Here is the percent voting by race and age for congressional elections

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/historical/a1-congressional.jpg

Here is the same chart for Presidential elections

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/historical/a1-presidential.jpg

You are saying that the liberal media is labeling something the GOP does well as "radical"? Color me shocked. Or maybe its the same people that always show up to vote because they know it means something even if the POTUS is not being elected.

Bunch
05-13-2013, 03:26 PM
So, one liberal group gets audited is equal to scores of groups with either the word "Patriot" or "TEA party" being singled out?
Yeah your probably right. But for the NAACP being was not being "audited" they were being TARGETED, same as is happening here. Either way this is just a horrendous case of government gone wild. Everyone involved with this needs to go, and I dont mean fired, I mean jail.

SomeRandomGuy
05-13-2013, 03:29 PM
So only "radicals" take an interest in voting for the primary law makers in the government? All the house of rep and a third of the senate are less important than the POTUS and those who see these are the elections that mean the most are considered radicals?

Maybe Radicals is the wrong word. The point I was making is that people who are labeled "radicals" by the media are the groups who actually turn out for mid-term elections. Here is a chart that shows turnout of presidential elections versus mid-term. The only year the democrats did well was 2006 (cause by the damage Bush had done). Other than that republicans tend to do better because they have more "radicals" or "diahards"

Here is the percent voting by race and age for congressional elections

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/historical/a1-congressional.jpg

Here is the same chart for Presidential elections

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/historical/a1-presidential.jpg

technomage1
05-13-2013, 03:45 PM
Yeah your probably right. But for the NAACP being was not being "audited" they were being TARGETED, same as is happening here. Either way this is just a horrendous case of government gone wild. Everyone involved with this needs to go, and I dont mean fired, I mean jail.

I'm not saying what happened was right, but the NAACP does not have a stated position on taxes like the tea party does. That just isn't their issue. A group that is against government spending and "excessive" taxes is probably going to get a bit more scrutiny. It's like the car driving down the highway with an "I love Weed" bumper sticker is probably going to get a second glance from a passing cop vs someone else who has not stated a position publically on the issue (especially if they're doing 20 mph under the speed limit and playing the Doors. Just saying).

Now, that doesn't mean the tea party groups cheated on their taxes just because they are against them. You can be against something yet still follow the law. But I can see how they got into the "second look" pile.

Bunch
05-13-2013, 03:51 PM
I'm not saying what happened was right, but the NAACP does not have a stated position on taxes like the tea party does. That just isn't their issue. A group that is against government spending and "excessive" taxes is probably going to get a bit more scrutiny. It's like the car driving down the highway with an "I love Weed" bumper sticker is probably going to get a second glance from a passing cop vs someone else who has not stated a position publically on the issue (especially if they're doing 20 mph under the speed limit and playing the Doors. Just saying).

Now, that doesn't mean the tea party groups cheated on their taxes just because they are against them. You can be against something yet still follow the law. But I can see how they got into the "second look" pile.

I agree with this, I stated as much on my first post on this thread. Is just unconscionable that in this day an age of technology and whistleblowers people think that these types of crimes would not be uncovered.

technomage1
05-13-2013, 03:57 PM
I agree with this, I stated as much on my first post on this thread. Is just unconscionable that in this day an age of technology and whistleblowers people think that these types of crimes would not be uncovered.

Well, I suppose that depends on if profiling in the IRS is a crime or not. Honestly, I have no idea if it is or not. But is profiling morally wrong? On the one hand, profiling, if done correctly, would help the IRS target groups likely to commit tax fraud, and therefore save IRS resources and time from random audits. On the other hand, random audits seem more fair, especially if you're in the group being targeted.

I think profiling in general is an issue we haven't made up our minds yet about as a society. I'm willing to bet some people who are horrified about the IRS profiling would be OK with, say, immigration profiling. Or vice versa, for that matter.

Bunch
05-13-2013, 04:12 PM
Well, I suppose that depends on if profiling in the IRS is a crime or not. Honestly, I have no idea if it is or not. But is profiling morally wrong? On the one hand, profiling, if done correctly, would help the IRS target groups likely to commit tax fraud, and therefore save IRS resources and time from random audits. On the other hand, random audits seem more fair, especially if you're in the group being targeted.

I think profiling in general is an issue we haven't made up our minds yet about as a society. I'm willing to bet some people who are horrified about the IRS profiling would be OK with, say, immigration profiling. Or vice versa, for that matter.

I like the word that Rep. Charles Boustany used, he called it "discrimination". Discrimination is a crime and it can also open the door for all sorts of civil lawsuits. The IRS is going to be neck deep in lawsuits after this and will have to keep a very low profile in the coming years.

Rusty Jones
05-13-2013, 04:14 PM
I like the word that Rep. Charles Boustany used, he called it "discrimination". Discrimination is a crime and it can also open the door for all sorts of civil lawsuits. The IRS is going to be neck deep in lawsuits after this and will have to keep a very low profile in the coming years.

They're going to have to look somewhere else to find a "crime," because "political affiliation" is not a protected class.

SomeRandomGuy
05-13-2013, 04:20 PM
Well, I suppose that depends on if profiling in the IRS is a crime or not. Honestly, I have no idea if it is or not. But is profiling morally wrong? On the one hand, profiling, if done correctly, would help the IRS target groups likely to commit tax fraud, and therefore save IRS resources and time from random audits. On the other hand, random audits seem more fair, especially if you're in the group being targeted.

I think profiling in general is an issue we haven't made up our minds yet about as a society. I'm willing to bet some people who are horrified about the IRS profiling would be OK with, say, immigration profiling. Or vice versa, for that matter.

It is an interesting issue. If you ask most cops if they profile they will admit they do. They are just not allowed to use race as part of the criteria. In financial auditing most audits are triggered by flags. When I worked travel audit for a civilain company I helped set up some of the travel audit flags. We audited 10% of all vouchers, 100% of any claims over $3500, and then we had other various audit flags. One of the flags I added was if someone had an excessive amount of claims slightly under the threshold requiring a reciept (like if someone submitted a DoD voucher with a bunch of $74.99 items). Another I added was if someone claimed too many miles for one day. If a person claimed more than about 400 miles on any one day it needed a second look. Of course just because a claim gets audited does not make it fraudulent. You have to look for patterns of activity.

As far as I know the IRS also uses triggers for most of their audits and then they also select a random sampling by hand. Most rich people such as O'Reilly (I mentioned above) will automatically hit the triggers because they have an extreme amount of itemized deductions. This is a perfectly legitimate method even if it ends up flagging mostly wealthy people who tend to vote republican. While using itemized deductions is legitimate using a group's political motivations as a flag in my opinion is wrong. I can understand why that was used as a trigger though. During the year before the election a massive amount of groups applied for not for profit status. The IRS allows these groups to raise money and spend money on politics. This cannot be their primary activity though. I can definitly see how the IRS would want to use tag words like tea party to find these groups. The only thing wrong with the way they did this was that they did not have an all inclusive list of political tagwords. If they had also included tag words like gay rights it would have been a perfectly legal form of disriminating between applications.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-13-2013, 04:34 PM
I like the word that Rep. Charles Boustany used, he called it "discrimination". Discrimination is a crime and it can also open the door for all sorts of civil lawsuits. The IRS is going to be neck deep in lawsuits after this and will have to keep a very low profile in the coming years.

But when you sue the IRS, you are just taking more money from the people since this is not a private firm that generates revenue, they only steel the money they have.

technomage1
05-13-2013, 04:34 PM
They're going to have to look somewhere else to find a "crime," because "political affiliation" is not a protected class.

Exactly right. Same as age and gender for automotive insurance isn't protected.

Measure Man
05-13-2013, 04:39 PM
Well, I suppose that depends on if profiling in the IRS is a crime or not. Honestly, I have no idea if it is or not. But is profiling morally wrong? On the one hand, profiling, if done correctly, would help the IRS target groups likely to commit tax fraud, and therefore save IRS resources and time from random audits. On the other hand, random audits seem more fair, especially if you're in the group being targeted.

I think profiling in general is an issue we haven't made up our minds yet about as a society. I'm willing to bet some people who are horrified about the IRS profiling would be OK with, say, immigration profiling. Or vice versa, for that matter.

The really troubling thing about profiling is that it works.

Bunch
05-13-2013, 04:44 PM
It is an interesting issue. If you ask most cops if they profile they will admit they do. They are just not allowed to use race as part of the criteria. In financial auditing most audits are triggered by flags. When I worked travel audit for a civilain company I helped set up some of the travel audit flags. We audited 10% of all vouchers, 100% of any claims over $3500, and then we had other various audit flags. One of the flags I added was if someone had an excessive amount of claims slightly under the threshold requiring a reciept (like if someone submitted a DoD voucher with a bunch of $74.99 items). Another I added was if someone claimed too many miles for one day. If a person claimed more than about 400 miles on any one day it needed a second look. Of course just because a claim gets audited does not make it fraudulent. You have to look for patterns of activity.

As far as I know the IRS also uses triggers for most of their audits and then they also select a random sampling by hand. Most rich people such as O'Reilly (I mentioned above) will automatically hit the triggers because they have an extreme amount of itemized deductions. This is a perfectly legitimate method even if it ends up flagging mostly wealthy people who tend to vote republican. While using itemized deductions is legitimate using a group's political motivations as a flag in my opinion is wrong. I can understand why that was used as a trigger though. During the year before the election a massive amount of groups applied for not for profit status. The IRS allows these groups to raise money and spend money on politics. This cannot be their primary activity though. I can definitly see how the IRS would want to use tag words like tea party to find these groups. The only thing wrong with the way they did this was that they did not have an all inclusive list of political tagwords. If they had also included tag words like gay rights it would have been a perfectly legal form of disriminating between applications.

Good post.

CYBERFX1024
05-13-2013, 04:46 PM
The really troubling thing about profiling is that it works.

I to find profiling troubling, it is almost like stereotyping a individual or a group of people. But like you said it does work. Look at NYC they started profiling people and doing the "Stop and Frisk" patrols on the streets. The bad thing is that it selected primarily one group of people. But the good thing is that violence involving firearms dropped dramatically since they implemented it. So you have to outweigh the good versus the bad.

71Fish
05-13-2013, 06:09 PM
I to find profiling troubling, it is almost like stereotyping a individual or a group of people. But like you said it does work. Look at NYC they started profiling people and doing the "Stop and Frisk" patrols on the streets. The bad thing is that it selected primarily one group of people. But the good thing is that violence involving firearms dropped dramatically since they implemented it. So you have to outweigh the good versus the bad.

The un-PC problem with stereotyping is that stereotyping is based (at least partially) on fact.

Tak
05-13-2013, 06:17 PM
did this happen before last election?

Bunch
05-13-2013, 06:24 PM
Stereotyping and profiling are two different things. Stereotyping is just wrong, profiling is debatable. I think that if you poll the majority of people they wouldn't mind profiling the problem is execution. You always going to have your dumb cop, your racist cop, your stupid cop that will do something stupid and then all hell will break lose.

CYBERFX1024
05-13-2013, 07:13 PM
Part of your response is true. The other is debatable.
Stereotyping is almost always based on some merit. Yeah it may be racist or un-pc but it is based in some fact somewhere. Even black people know that the stereotype is based on some sort of fact. I think it's funny how some black people won't live in the same neighborhood as other black people because they them a bad name. While the I can attest to the fact that I have some family and ex-in laws that are the stereotypical redneck and are damn proud of it.

You will always have those guys no matter what race or culture they are from.

Bunch
05-13-2013, 08:49 PM
Part of your response is true. The other is debatable.
Stereotyping is almost always based on some merit. Yeah it may be racist or un-pc but it is based in some fact somewhere. Even black people know that the stereotype is based on some sort of fact. I think it's funny how some black people won't live in the same neighborhood as other black people because they them a bad name. While the I can attest to the fact that I have some family and ex-in laws that are the stereotypical redneck and are damn proud of it.

You will always have those guys no matter what race or culture they are from.

I agree that some stereotypes can have some merit to them because there are empirical data to back them up, you always have to careful on how to publish an opinion or argument that can be misconstrued. The key rules I use is to not be an absolutist about anything and refrain from blanket statements, blanket statements are usually the ones that get people in trouble because they are easy to make.

As hispanic I like to keep away from stereotypes because they become a mental crutch. People use it as an excuse to be racist, to be poor, to be drug addicts, to be sexual predators, to be uneducated, to be criminals. If I had followed the stereotypes that describe a puertorican male born in the island where spanish is his native langauge I should be either dead or in jail.

CYBERFX1024
05-13-2013, 09:35 PM
I agree that some stereotypes can have some merit to them because there are empirical data to back them up, you always have to careful on how to publish an opinion or argument that can be misconstrued. The key rules I use is to not be an absolutist about anything and refrain from blanket statements, blanket statements are usually the ones that get people in trouble because they are easy to make.
As hispanic I like to keep away from stereotypes because they become a mental crutch. People use it as an excuse to be racist, to be poor, to be drug addicts, to be sexual predators, to be uneducated, to be criminals. If I had followed the stereotypes that describe a puertorican male born in the island where spanish is his native langauge I should be either dead or in jail.

You are correct. as well. I try and keep away from stereotypes as well. I try and get to know the real person or people. But there is always a exception to everything as you know.

technomage1
05-13-2013, 10:57 PM
As others have noted,there is a difference between stereotyping and profiling. We're profiled all the time. Advertising, for example, tends to focus on groups. You're not likely to see a tampon ad in a muscle car magazine, for example. That doesn't mean no women read that magazine, only that mostly men do.

I do think there is a line that should to be crossed while profiling, I just not sure if the IRS crossed it with the tea party or not. A group that opposes taxation might be worth further scrutiny in that area. Now if an anti climate change group was audited more, then I'd say it was a conspiracy.

I do wonder how many (if any) of the groups were found to be tax cheats.

garhkal
05-14-2013, 05:15 AM
The un-PC problem with stereotyping is that stereotyping is based (at least partially) on fact.

Very true.. And as one teacher in high school said to our economics class, "just cause some do break the mold of their stereotype does not mean the type is no longer valid.

RobotChicken
05-14-2013, 05:28 AM
:help Speaking of the 'IRS'; what the 'l' is a 3 star rating?? Behind on taxes or something......:rain

VFFTSGT
05-15-2013, 05:08 AM
Hilarious......

Jon Stewart Destroys Obama Over IRS Scandal
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-13-2013/barack-trek--into-darkness

Banned
05-15-2013, 06:24 PM
Hey Joe the last time I have heard or seen anything by the Occupy movement was when I went to the Rose Bowl parade. They had a unofficial float that followed the actual parade showing people who got foreclosed on.

The Occupy Movement was indeed completely disorganized with no clear purpose. It also helped that Corporate America spent millions of dollars, and tens of thousands of police were employed to crush it.


The Tea Party is still relevant and you will see that next year in 2014 when we take back the Senate and solidify the House.

Unfortunately - I do see the case for the Tea Party as still relevant. They have done an astonishing job of radicalizing both the GOP, and America in general, bringing shifting the entire country to the right.

JD2780
05-15-2013, 06:36 PM
The Occupy Movement was indeed completely disorganized with no clear purpose. It also helped that Corporate America spent millions of dollars, and tens of thousands of police were employed to crush it.



Unfortunately - I do see the case for the Tea Party as still relevant. They have done an astonishing job of radicalizing both the GOP, and America in general, bringing shifting the entire country to the right.

Yea the peaceful protests of the occupy movement, while inside the movement, there was rampant drug use, violence, and sexual assaults happening. Seems legit.

Banned
05-15-2013, 06:46 PM
Yea the peaceful protests of the occupy movement, while inside the movement, there was rampant drug use, violence, and sexual assaults happening. Seems legit.

The Occupy gatherings I went to went fine. But that's probably because I brought my bible, which drove away the evil spirits. Magic Sky Man blessed me. :)

JD2780
05-15-2013, 06:56 PM
Funny, not even a religion thread and joe can't pass up and opportunity to bash a religion. I think he is actually fascinated by it.

Or it's because you just went to them, but stay at them over night camping out like the dedicated one. I think JB is a social hippy. Likes to appear to be against big corporations but loves using their products.

CYBERFX1024
05-15-2013, 07:29 PM
Funny, not even a religion thread and joe can't pass up and opportunity to bash a religion. I think he is actually fascinated by it.
Or it's because you just went to them, but stay at them over night camping out like the dedicated one. I think JB is a social hippy. Likes to appear to be against big corporations but loves using their products.

That's like the occupy hippies disowning anything to do with the "EVIL" corporations as they are using their phones and apple computers. Hmmmmm.

Banned
05-15-2013, 09:07 PM
Funny, not even a religion thread and joe can't pass up and opportunity to bash a religion. I think he is actually fascinated by it.

I have had enough of your insulting attitude against Magic Sky Man.


Or it's because you just went to them, but stay at them over night camping out like the dedicated one. I think JB is a social hippy. Likes to appear to be against big corporations but loves using their products.


That's like the occupy hippies disowning anything to do with the "EVIL" corporations as they are using their phones and apple computers. Hmmmmm.

Believe it or not guys... it IS possible to like modern technology and still be against massive mortgage fraud.

But Magic Sky Man says slaves must obey your masters... so I suppose JD's argument makes sense in that light.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-16-2013, 12:55 PM
Funny, Obama tells high schoolers not to listen to the libertarians about "Tyranny just around the corner", while it was actually already going on under his nose. Cant wait till all the people that called the IRS with questions about their taxes come out with the recordings with the IRS representative asking them who the voted for or what political affiliation they belonged to.

garhkal
05-16-2013, 06:29 PM
HEard that the current head "resigned" and the news ticker says 2 "rogue agents" are responsible for it all.. Smells funny to me.

imported_WILDJOKER5
05-16-2013, 06:30 PM
The acting head was set to resign in June anymays, and he still doesnt leave till June as it is. They didnt fire him, he is staying on target with the plan as before. And "2 rogue agents" that operate in 3 different cities targeting 500 different offices and people? Please, either Obama is incompident (yes) or guilty (Yes).

Capt Alfredo
05-16-2013, 11:45 PM
The acting head was set to resign in June anymays, and he still doesnt leave till June as it is. They didnt fire him, he is staying on target with the plan as before. And "2 rogue agents" that operate in 3 different cities targeting 500 different offices and people? Please, either Obama is incompident (yes) or guilty (Yes).

The irony of calling someone incompetent who can't even spell the word....

Tak
05-16-2013, 11:46 PM
The irony of calling someone incompetent who can't even spell the word....

Must be an officer, probably a commander.

grimreaper
05-16-2013, 11:50 PM
The acting head was set to resign in June anymays, and he still doesnt leave till June as it is. They didnt fire him, he is staying on target with the plan as before. And "2 rogue agents" that operate in 3 different cities targeting 500 different offices and people? Please, either Obama is incompident (yes) or guilty (Yes).

This guy didn't even take over the position until Nov 2012, after all this nonsense was going on. The woman in-charge at that time is now running the IRS ObamaCare office. Now she has access to even more people's personal information and their health info too. Go figure.

Capt Alfredo
05-17-2013, 12:22 AM
Must be an officer, probably a commander.

Yep, because officers, especially commanders, are known for being dumb-asses who can't spell.

Tak
05-17-2013, 01:10 AM
Yep, because officers, especially commanders, are known for being dumb-asses who can't spell.

Bingo...that's why they us a red pen, but one of my missile sq commanders wasn't allowed to
Correct with a red pen because it was offensive.

Capt Alfredo
05-17-2013, 02:04 AM
Bingo...that's why they us a red pen, but one of my missile sq commanders wasn't allowed to
Correct with a red pen because it was offensive.

The pen is a weapon in some hands.

JD2780
05-17-2013, 03:23 AM
Yep, because officers, especially commanders, are known for being dumb-asses who can't spell.

That is why they have execs.

RobotChicken
05-17-2013, 03:32 AM
This guy didn't even take over the position until Nov 2012, after all this nonsense was going on. The woman in-charge at that time is now running the IRS ObamaCare office. Now she has access to even more people's personal information and their health info too. Go figure.
:brick 3 star A$$CLOWN....go bury yourself a 'BUNCH' with your circus!!:nono

garhkal
05-17-2013, 08:00 PM
Watching today's hearings i loved how one senator said something like "well your statements may release you from being corrupt, but it just makes you look incompetent".
Both to me should be cause for FIRING/Jailig them, not just letting them "retire".

Tak
05-17-2013, 08:03 PM
This thread has nothing to do with the Air Force.

grimreaper
05-17-2013, 08:05 PM
Watching today's hearings i loved how one senator said something like "well your statements may release you from being corrupt, but it just makes you look incompetent".
Both to me should be cause for FIRING/Jailig them, not just letting them "retire".

LOL, that's awesome. Let them chose which one they are. I'm guessing that they would choose the latter over the former to avoid prosecution, but none the less, they should still be fired.

grimreaper
05-17-2013, 08:07 PM
This thread has nothing to do with the Air Force.

Nothing whatsoever.

Slyoldawg
05-25-2013, 12:47 AM
The head of the IRS visits the White House 118 times, and only remembers the Easter egg hunt.

RobotChicken
05-25-2013, 01:22 AM
:hat Musta' been one 'L of a hunt!!!!!!! :lock1

Slyoldawg
05-25-2013, 01:39 AM
The bigger the government the smaller the citizen