UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
but.....planned parenthood. they had to.....because planned parenthood.
Democrats Pull Political Stunt to Cover IRS Scandal
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
but.....planned parenthood. they had to.....because planned parenthood.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
I remember the first shutdown threat when I was still enlisted. They love the troops, but not enough to actually provide them with promised pay and benefits.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Fortunately, the military credit unions (At least the Navy and Corps ones.) stepped up and said they'd make sure we got paid if the government failed to; in the form of an advance on payday. So we weren't afraid of not being able to cover bills. We were pissed though. A lot of my buddies swore they'd never vote republican again after that shit. That party made its bullshit pretty clear in that moment. "We love you troops, but not enough to pay you."
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Good try in dodging the true points, but I forgot, you did not see any. Blithe dismissal is a UB technique, but I know you can do better.
You know that you can engage more substantively.
Oh I forgot again, you were unable to perceive any points worthy of your rebuttal in the piece that I c/p'd.
As you said, the article consisted only of attacks to the man...or simply put name calling...your perception is disappointing to say the least.
My brain is befuddled and inoperable due to White Widow ingestion, and my new Mac, I need my windows o/s
Wavels
Well-Known Member
i concur in totality with this post.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Maybe you need a rest KP
I was talking about balancing the executive power.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
If it's partisan, then it's not really balance. I'd call that squabbling over who gets to fuck us next time around. Repubs are just as cool with abuses of power; just as long as it's them doing the abusing. See the patriot act, which was pretty much when the constitution went out the window.
We know its a scandal we new it along time ago.
Now we will see if there will be another one stemming from not
receiving all the emails.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
witness the nearly illiterate opposition.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
So there's no possible reason for the IRS to check out the new hotbutton groups popping up everywhere? Maybe to make sure they are actually acting as political groups and not as tax windfalls? There's no scandal without actual evidence of misconduct.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i just googled "thousands come forward in IRS scandal" and got exactly no relevant results that give me any idea of what the fuck you might be talking about, toolwoman.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
The tea party groups are the new hot-button group; the point was that giving closer scrutiny to them seems logical. If I was to try to create a tax windfall, then I'd sure as hell place it in the place where it's likely to blend in with a much larger group. Safety in numbers and all. You don't need to read between the lines. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; no attempt at deception there.
What is this "circumstantial evidence"? I don't think it means what you think it means.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Witnesses to misconduct are not circumstantial evidence. As I suspected you don't know what the phrase means.
I know exactly what circumstantial evidence is, and so do Americans that is why almost all
of them want a special prosecutor appointed. All you have to do is read something
other than Politico the huffington post or MSNBC crap or you would know this.
maybe start with Wikipedia...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cans-want-special-prosecutor-for-irs-scandal/
of them want a special prosecutor appointed. All you have to do is read something
other than Politico the huffington post or MSNBC crap or you would know this.
maybe start with Wikipedia...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cans-want-special-prosecutor-for-irs-scandal/
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
So what the hell does a special prosecutor have to do with the fact that you keep claiming a scandal based on "thousands who have come forward"? Having a neutral third party involved would certainly add to the credibility of the investigation. However, it seems to have done nothing to support anything you said. It also doesn't change the fact that circumstantial evidence is worthless without something more solid for it to stand on.
