Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 248
  1. #81
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    JJ: You started with saying that I was incorrect and that you have supported this is a scandal. That implies I have said the opposite (that it's not a scandal) or that I'm saying you haven't provided support for such.

    No, my statement was based upon my understanding of this: "you have provided no proof of." As I have provided evidence to support that it is a scandal.
    Yes, but that was several posts ago! Before I had agreed to every one of your points; including your understanding of my issue!

    Clearly, we were talking at cross-purposes: you enraged about what I see as being a procedural issue; and me trying to get you to show proof of illegal, illicit and deliberate use of a government body for political gain. You have said that you weren't supporting the latter and that you continue to be angered by the former. Whether it could be called a 'scandal' or not is hardly the issue of substance and I have already admitted being wrong on that point.

    Regardless, at no point did I indicate that you don't think it is a scandal, as I said before, your personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant to the discussion.
    True, and I agree. There are certain people who find things more scandalous than others and that sensitivity should be respected not dismissed, as I was trying to do with the first portion of this debate. So I apologize for that oversight.


    My rebuttal is a rejection of your seeming attempt to shift the goal posts. Your position seems to be "ohh if that is what you mean by scandal, sure, I guess. I mean something more."

    You initially began asking me to show intent. When I showed intent, you then shifted your goal posts about how I really needed to show the psychological reasoning behind the intent. My response is that that is a fallacy, it is not required to show what has been argued here, nor is it normally meant when people are discussing a scandal. It is a red herring fallacy combined with a shifting the goal post fallacy.
    I have been consistent at maintaining the relatively trivial nature of the scandal and my attempts to try and get you to not call it 'a scandal' was definitely my own tactical mistake. So I apologize if that was misleading; of course, you'd see it as scandalous - it's your party being wronged. So if you want to quibble over a word when the issue of substance, what I was seeking, is that this is not a scandal criminal-level political wrong-doing leading to the White House, then go ahead: it's not what you were supporting anyway so it was wrong of me to push you in that direction.

    I realized that then I had to get you to show your understanding of my position (remember me asking?) and though it took a little while and some poor examples, you finally articulated our positions better than I could and even broke the record for not mentioning Hitler the longest. So congratulations on both fronts.

    Once that was done, the rest is simple: we are not seeing the same situation in the same way. You about the surface view of the issue, and me looking for political criminal activity at a deeper level. What has been confusing is your insinuation of the latter, whilst not offering evidence, but further investigations and lawsuits of high-level wrong doing. But if you're not even arguing that point then it's all moot.

    Regardless, there's been no shifting of goals - it's getting you to understand what kind of scandal I was looking for. I have been consistent since the beginning that you had nothing; and end up with the same exact position; though now with more proof than I did at the beginning. So thank you for that too.

    Your acceptance of my position should be the only part of your post that is relevant. You have ceded the argument to me, regardless of your attempts to hedge that admission.
    I have always maintained that there is nothing to this scandal, or at least not to the level that was originally purported by Isa and which you still insinuate. All your examples and even your most recent rendering:


    Motivation: Intentional delay their processing


    doesn't go as far as criminal activity. It sounds like exactly what it is - a boring clerical problem.

    Anything further than that is still being investigated, in your words, unsubstantiated: that includes the lawsuit that has not concluded and the FBI investigation that is still on going. If you want to spend time raging on something that might turn out to be truly scandalous and fuel yourself with having been legitimately wronged (albeit by a clerical error), then go at it.



    So no, I haven't ceded any argument because we don't have one, as you pointed out yourself and I agreed to - we're just looking at different aspects of this scenario. You still 'get to' feel scandalized about this and I get to move on with my life with another manufactured Republican scandal to add to my belt. This is a win-win for both of us.

  2. #82
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Regardless, there's been no shifting of goals - it's getting you to understand what kind of scandal I was looking for.
    This thread was started by Cowboy to discuss the nature of this as a scandal. His argument was that the IRS was also targeting Progressives, and as such, this was not a scandal. That argument has been refuted and dropped. At no point has the requirement that it be "criminal" been relevant until you brought it up a few posts ago. That is you shifting the goal posts to make the burden of proof more difficult than it was before. IE a shifting the goal posts fallacy.

    A scandal does not need to be illegal to be a scandal, if that is your level of proof requirement, then you need to offer evidence to support that it is, in fact, a requirement, not a JJ preference.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    ...what I was seeking, is that this is not a scandal criminal-level political wrong-doing leading to the White House,
    Have you offered evidence of this? That doesn't seem to be the default position on something. If you wish to offer actual evidence that this is not a scandal of that level, please do so, otherwise please be careful in how you phrase what you believe you have supported and what you have not.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You about the surface view of the issue, and me looking for political criminal activity at a deeper level.
    That is a remarkably self-serving description of the thread and one that is not intellectually honest. Adding irrelevant Red Herrings is not looking at something at a "deeper" level, it is looking at it in an irrational manner.

    The psychology of the Chief Counsel's office is irrelevant to whether this was a scandal involving the Administration (shown) intentionally targeting political opposition (shown) in order to delay their ability to express their free speech rights (shown).


    You may add whatever qualifier you wish, perhaps they did it via email and that is less scandalous than a letter. Perhaps they wore blue suits and that is different than gray suits. Nothing you have offered here changes the above, nothing about the above is "administrative" or "clerical" and you've offered no evidence that this was simply a policy or process problem. In fact, the sum total of your entire rebuttal here is nothing more than a "nu-uh" denial of the obvious facts. This was a scandal, it was a political scandal and it involves the administration.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    What has been confusing is your insinuation of the latter,
    And your outright dismissal of the possibility regardless of evidence to the contrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    doesn't go as far as criminal activity. It sounds like exactly what it is - a boring clerical problem.
    False dichotomy fallacy. You seem to misunderstand what the word clerical means. Clerical means an administrative filing process. This was an intentional targeting of a political group to delay their free speech rights, that isn't, by definition, clerical.

    By your use of the word unconscious racism is just a "clerical problem" after all it isn't explicitly illegal. Hell, most political scandals in US histories are just boring "clerical problems." Even if we accepted all the Left's unsupported claims about the Halliburton corporation that would be just a boring "clerical problem" in your definition since it wasn't illegal.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #83
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Your posts for the last couple of days seem to be bordering on personal attack and ad hominems. Whereas, I am seeking to close this out since I thought we had figured out our differences, you seem to be seeking some kind of concession on an issue which won't give you what you want anyway. It seems that you're digging for scraps given that your scandal has been proven to be much less dramatic than what you (and Issa) wish it to be.

    And having fizzled away to what I see as clerical, administrative and perhaps even just pure laziness, it seems that you're just looking for something to be angry about. You haven't been personally wronged and I am allowed to not join you in your anger. Trying to get me to admit that I'm modifying my position isn't going to happen - I have always claimed this is a phony scandal. You have done literally nothing to change my mind and everything you have done convinces me even more that you are making this out to be more than it really is (especially when you keep alluding to on going investigations as if they were concluded).

    Thus far it seems that you're angry that I'm not angry when all it is that we're don't angry about the same thing. And I am getting the sense that I am beginning to repeat myself so try and confine yourself to a single point and tackle that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This thread was started by Cowboy to discuss the nature of this as a scandal. His argument was that the IRS was also targeting Progressives, and as such, this was not a scandal. That argument has been refuted and dropped. At no point has the requirement that it be "criminal" been relevant until you brought it up a few posts ago. That is you shifting the goal posts to make the burden of proof more difficult than it was before. IE a shifting the goal posts fallacy.
    A scandal does not need to be illegal to be a scandal, if that is your level of proof requirement, then you need to offer evidence to support that it is, in fact, a requirement, not a JJ preference.
    Again, I am not saying that it's not a scandal. I am saying it is not a scandal that I originally thought this was, that of a criminal-level conspiracy leading to the WH of blocking a few C-groups. It's not a 'preference', it's that I was expecting a scandal of substance of not administrivia. We're just seeing it differently as your own renderings of our positions keeps showing.

    Please stop getting this wrong.

    JJ: ...what I was seeking, is that this is not a scandal criminal-level political wrong-doing leading to the White House,
    Have you offered evidence of this? That doesn't seem to be the default position on something. If you wish to offer actual evidence that this is not a scandal of that level, please do so, otherwise please be careful in how you phrase what you believe you have supported and what you have not.
    No, but it's what Issa has been implying for months until his position was fully debunked with P-groups also being targeted. I had assume that you'd believed the same, given the intermittent reference to the WH connection (which you admitted was only an "unsubstantiated" insinuation of a connection) but since you didn't then we have no disagreement. You have already said that you don't care whether it was criminally minded or not.


    That is a remarkably self-serving description of the thread and one that is not intellectually honest. Adding irrelevant Red Herrings is not looking at something at a "deeper" level, it is looking at it in an irrational manner.

    The psychology of the Chief Counsel's office is irrelevant to whether this was a scandal involving the Administration (shown) intentionally targeting political opposition (shown) in order to delay their ability to express their free speech rights (shown).
    Well, if you can't distinguish between an agent doing his job overzealously and political gamesmanship then that's fine. Just saying it is intentional has a neutral meaning - it could cover both cases. You are just taking advantage of that ambiguity because there's plenty of evidence for the former interpretation (including chastisements, resignations and firings) but very little for the latter interpretation other than ongoing investigations.

    I already know the evidence for the former and have always maintained that is not under dispute; it is the latter information which has the makings of a scandal worth paying attention to. In saying that you don't care about this distinction is fine - then we can part ways.

    You may add whatever qualifier you wish, perhaps they did it via email and that is less scandalous than a letter. Perhaps they wore blue suits and that is different than gray suits. Nothing you have offered here changes the above, nothing about the above is "administrative" or "clerical" and you've offered no evidence that this was simply a policy or process problem. In fact, the sum total of your entire rebuttal here is nothing more than a "nu-uh" denial of the obvious facts. This was a scandal, it was a political scandal and it involves the administration.
    No, I have been consistent in my view of what the scandal was. And you too have been consistent. Your comments have been very bland and neutral when challenged:

    In post 60, around your wall of text, when challenged to produce a single incriminating sentence, you chose:

    "The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention"

    And that's hardly an issue of an evil misuse of power. If anything, it's probably laziness, which makes it not even reach your low levels of scandal. And these are your best words that you yourself chose to represent your position out of an entire document of thousands of words.

    And just a couple of days ago:


    Action: Concentration Camps Action: Target Conservative Groups

    Motivation: Genocide Motivation: Intentional delay their processing
    Philosophy: Racism Philosophy: ?

    Again very blandly stated (especially next to Genocide). And within that question mark is either 'political gainsmanship" or "zealously doing their job, mostly per existing protocol".

    As far as evidence, I trust that you have done your homework and your worst evidence pretty much supports an administrative issue not a politically motivated one. And I'm fine if you see this as scandalous. I don't deny your rather lukewarm evidence and agree that it doesn't speak of philosophy or higher level motivations of wrong-doing. I'm not taking away your scandal as you see it nor I am imposing a position onto you that you never supported.

    When I said you had 'nothing' and 'no evidence', I was talking about my view of the scandal; which you weren't supporting anyway. So we have zero disagreement. Yet you keep looking for disagreement.


    And your outright dismissal of the possibility regardless of evidence to the contrary.
    The only time where you have any connections to motivation (WH visits, FBI investigations, lawsuits by Fox News contributors) are not yet conclusive, therefore, all their claims are moot and unsubstantiated. Remember, they were only revealed to support my claim that there was no criminal investigation, not that it was a criminal activity to begin with.

    I have been careful to have you put forward the case yourself, I have a similar set of information, and have been reasonably interested in the case for a little while. So when you are asked to support your case, you are cautious in the claims and then you are raging where there are insinuations, demanding more investigations, etc. Which is typical of practically every other Republican so-called scandal (e.g. the 'terrorist act' vs 'act of terrorism' scandal behind the so-called Benghazi scandal; or from the last campaign, the 'you didn't build that' thing that Obama said). Lots of initial bluster and anger over hardly anything.

    So I'm not going to rage where there is no direct proof of political wrong-doing, especially of the criminal kind. These points you have provided could mean either criminal or non-criminal wrong-doing but since you said you weren't supporting the position at that level anyway, any distinction is moot.


    False dichotomy fallacy. You seem to misunderstand what the word clerical means. Clerical means an administrative filing process. This was an intentional targeting of a political group to delay their free speech rights, that isn't, by definition, clerical.
    I think we went through this with the color scenario. It is only "intentional" in the sense that it was a group that was unknown and there were are a large number. That it was political group intentially targeted is purely circumstantial. As your own P-group rendering showed, it could easily happen to any other group.

    By your use of the word unconscious racism is just a "clerical problem" after all it isn't explicitly illegal. Hell, most political scandals in US histories are just boring "clerical problems." Even if we accepted all the Left's unsupported claims about the Halliburton corporation that would be just a boring "clerical problem" in your definition since it wasn't illegal.
    It all depends, is a postman who delivers a mass mailing from the KKK, also racist? Or is he just doing his job? Or if the local KKK office were expecting a large number of applications, would the post office be deliberately delaying things if they wait for the afternoon post and do one big delivery near the end of the day?

  4. #84
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    First, I think we should start out with some clarity, lets review what we know has happened.

    Activity Legality Probability of Occurrence Current Status
    1) Intentional targeting of political opposition Violates Treasury regulation, IRS regulation, and IG recommendations, possibly illegal Confirmed as having happened Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, Secret Service and House Audit Committee
    2) Intentional delaying of processing to prevent exercise of speech rights Violates civil rights, IRS regulation and Congressional authorization acts, certainly illegal Likely occurred either through gross negligence (illegal, civil) or intentional harm (illegal, criminal) Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, DOJ and via several civil lawsuits.
    3) Intentional sharing of privileged documentation to outside political groups Definitely illegal, violates IRS statute, Privacy Laws and US Code Confirmed as having happened, parties involved being investigated Currently under investigation by FBI and DOJ
    4) Sharing of confidential information with the White House for political benefit. Definitely illegal, violates section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and is punishable by up to five years in jail. Confirmed as having happened. Released yesterday as part of the House investigation into this scandal, criminal investigations underway.





    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    No, but it's what Issa has been implying for months until his position was fully debunked with P-groups also being targeted.
    Which was the point of this thread that you somehow overlooked for 83 posts. Cowboy offered a link arguing that they were targeted. I have shown that while their names were offered on a list, the Treasury IG report found that they were not actually targeted. IE that progressive groups were never included in this process and therefore Cowboy's objection is invalid.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, if you can't distinguish between an agent doing his job overzealously and political gamesmanship then that's fine. Just saying it is intentional has a neutral meaning - it could cover both cases.
    I think this shows a lack of linguistic comprehension, as I have showed now in several posts.

    If I intentionally shoot someone with the goal of harming them and with no legal justification for my action, I've committed murder.

    However in JJ's understanding

    If I intentionally block someone from exercising their rights with the goal of preventing that right and with no legal justification for my action, its "administrative."

    That shows poor reasoning. You are willing to use intent as important in one case where it is convenient, but not when it causes cognitive dissonance. This is a classical version of confirmation bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, I have been consistent in my view of what the scandal was. And you too have been consistent. Your comments have been very bland and neutral when challenged:
    This is a contextual fallacy. You are assuming that because the IG did not say something in a one sentence version that they did not imply it then. That is clearly fallacious in application. For example, if I were to argue that the constitution does not use the word abortion therefore there is no legal protection for that activity, you could argue that I missed the meaning of the terms in the document that imply it (whatever those might be). The idea that a text must be explicit or there is no meaning is nonsensical, we can't be blamed if you are unwilling to read more than one sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    The only time where you have any connections to motivation (WH visits, FBI investigations, lawsuits by Fox News contributors) are not yet conclusive,
    This is an intellectually dishonest statement. You just quoted me providing the motivation for these actions and agreed with them. You are therefore either intellectually incoherent on this issue or are begin intellectually dishonest in your approach.

    When you've insisted for "more" (with no support as to why that is necessary) you haven't asked for motivation, you've asked for the psychological underpinning of the motivation, which is completely irrelevant as a red herring fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It is only "intentional" in the sense that it was a group that was unknown and there were are a large number. That it was political group intentially targeted is purely circumstantial.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that this relationship was "circumstantial." The Treasury IG report references an intentional targetting based upon the political ideology of the groups. This would seem to indicate you are incorrect here.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It all depends, is a postman who delivers a mass mailing from the KKK, also racist?
    Irrelevant, no on is talking about the individual agents who exercised the actions here. We are talking about the Chief Counsel's office that issued the directives.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Or if the local KKK office were expecting a large number of applications, would the post office be deliberately delaying things if they wait for the afternoon post and do one big delivery near the end of the day?
    This is a good example, lets say the post office did have a large number of KKK applications and a large number of post office union applications. Now, lets say that they intentionally decided to delay the KKK applications for a day while processing the union applications. They made this decision based upon the ideology of the KKK and without any kind of underlying legal or rule support.

    Then they took the applications and sent copies to the NAACP with no justification while asking the KKK mailers to include further postage (which they had no legal basis to request).

    That is closer analogy and I think we can see the problems here with the Post Office's actions.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #85
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    [QUOTE=Squatch347;526436]First, I think we should start out with some clarity, lets review what we know has happened.

    Activity Legality Probability of Occurrence Current Status JJ Position
    1) Intentional targeting of political opposition Violates Treasury regulation, IRS regulation, and IG recommendations, possibly illegal Confirmed as having happened Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, Secret Service and House Audit Committee Agreement. These are facts.
    2) Intentional delaying of processing to prevent exercise of speech rights Violates civil rights, IRS regulation and Congressional authorization acts, certainly illegal Likely occurred either through gross negligence (illegal, civil) or intentional harm (illegal, criminal) Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, DOJ and via several civil lawsuits. Not confirmed.
    3) Intentional sharing of privileged documentation to outside political groups Definitely illegal, violates IRS statute, Privacy Laws and US Code Confirmed as having happened, parties involved being investigated Currently under investigation by FBI and DOJ Doesn't indicate political wrong-doing
    4) Sharing of confidential information with the White House for political benefit. Definitely illegal, violates section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and is punishable by up to five years in jail. Confirmed as having happened. Released yesterday as part of the House investigation into this scandal, criminal investigations underway. Irrelevant for the moment - you should have been able to support your position without this. But otherwise irrelevant.

    [QUOTE]

    I've added an additional column for my comments. I only agree that the first row is valid; the next two are inconclusive and the last one too new to include in this discussion. You said that you had sufficient proof before today, so anything new is irrelevant. You need to support your position based you the information you had at the time.



    JJ:No, but it's what Issa has been implying for months until his position was fully debunked with P-groups also being targeted.
    Which was the point of this thread that you somehow overlooked for 83 posts. Cowboy offered a link arguing that they were targeted. I have shown that while their names were offered on a list, the Treasury IG report found that they were not actually targeted. IE that progressive groups were never included in this process and therefore Cowboy's objection is invalid.
    I must've missed that dull piece of administratrivia - please provide proof that P-groups were not part of any bolo.

    I think this shows a lack of linguistic comprehension, as I have showed now in several posts.

    If I intentionally shoot someone with the goal of harming them and with no legal justification for my action, I've committed murder.

    However in JJ's understanding

    If I intentionally block someone from exercising their rights with the goal of preventing that right and with no legal justification for my action, its "administrative."

    That shows poor reasoning. You are willing to use intent as important in one case where it is convenient, but not when it causes cognitive dissonance. This is a classical version of confirmation bias.
    It's important because shooting someone indeed does have the goal of harm; but that person could be defending himself, or some other person. The shooter could also have been a soldier in a battlefield. Your lack of context is misleading and doesn't allow the blanket conclusion of 'murder'. It certainly could be murder, but without understanding the situation or the shooter's intent then you have nothing. So with a un-precise and incomplete description as you have persisted in presenting, yes, it could be murder, but it could also not be murder. It's why I remain unconvinced.

    The second example, is worded differently to mislead because now you are claiming that the 'goal is the prevention of a right' whereas, the actual goal is to determine whether they had that right in the first place. That's administrative but if you are now claiming that the administrators knew that they TP would pass a bolo test and still had them jump through hoops, then that is indeed wrong-doing at a political level worthy of a scandal. So do you have proof that this is the case? I certainly haven't seen that? Or is this another attempt to discredit my use of administrative, which is the actual case being debated.


    This is a contextual fallacy. You are assuming that because the IG did not say something in a one sentence version that they did not imply it then. That is clearly fallacious in application. For example, if I were to argue that the constitution does not use the word abortion therefore there is no legal protection for that activity, you could argue that I missed the meaning of the terms in the document that imply it (whatever those might be). The idea that a text must be explicit or there is no meaning is nonsensical, we can't be blamed if you are unwilling to read more than one sentence.
    No, you were asked to draw upon the 'wall of text', which in turn which was drawn, by you, from an entire report, that you claimed supported your claim of political machinations. And you came up with an entirely factual statement, that is not under dispute: that the kind of targeting was inappropriate. And that's after a few days of back and forth where it was clear what I was looking for.

    I agree that you can infer, insinuate or invent any scenario you wish that would fit the facts. But until there were proof of that scenario, then you have nothing more than the bare facts.

    JJ:The only time where you have any connections to motivation (WH visits, FBI investigations, lawsuits by Fox News contributors) are not yet conclusive,
    This is an intellectually dishonest statement. You just quoted me providing the motivation for these actions and agreed with them. You are therefore either intellectually incoherent on this issue or are begin intellectually dishonest in your approach.
    The only motivation I am agreeing with is your own :"Intentional delay their processing". The others, as you yourself have said, are inconclusive, because as you have also said, by definition, investigations are inconclusive. Adding that you are just insinuating these further links. And then later, claim that you are not interested because it was sufficient that C-groups were delayed and any deeper meaning are not in your interest.

    When you've insisted for "more" (with no support as to why that is necessary) you haven't asked for motivation, you've asked for the psychological underpinning of the motivation, which is completely irrelevant as a red herring fallacy.
    So you are satisfied with condemning someone with murder just on the bare facts that the shooter killed someone? I'd believe you but your attitudes towards the Trayvon Martin murder seems to be digging deeper.

    JJ: I think we went through this with the color scenario. It is only "intentional" in the sense that it was a group that was unknown and there were are a large number. That it was political group intentially targeted is purely circumstantial. As your own P-group rendering showed, it could easily happen to any other group.

    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that this relationship was "circumstantial." The Treasury IG report references an intentional targetting based upon the political ideology of the groups. This would seem to indicate you are incorrect here.
    That's the circumstantial situation - it could easily be a P-group as you yourself showed in an earlier scenario. This means that it could easily have been a P-group targeted and there is nothing that makes the entire reasoning process based only on the fact that it was a C-group involved. Until you provide that final conclusive piece of evidence that would prove beyond any doubt that this could only have happened to C-groups because there was an intent to political destablize them then you have nothing.



    Irrelevant, no on is talking about the individual agents who exercised the actions here. We are talking about the Chief Counsel's office that issued the directives.
    This is still relevant because the CCO is still part of the process. You still have to prove that he is doing it deliberately to help Obama's campaign. Just because he was involved that doesn't prove anything. This is just another insinuation on your part.

    This is a good example, lets say the post office did have a large number of KKK applications and a large number of post office union applications. Now, lets say that they intentionally decided to delay the KKK applications for a day while processing the union applications. They made this decision based upon the ideology of the KKK and without any kind of underlying legal or rule support.

    Then they took the applications and sent copies to the NAACP with no justification while asking the KKK mailers to include further postage (which they had no legal basis to request).

    That is closer analogy and I think we can see the problems here with the Post Office's actions.
    Yes, but it could easily be that the KKK were targeted due to their ideology because they knew more KKK applications were coming down the pike, in the next major delivery. So it makes sense to hold onto the ones they already had and do one larger delivery. The only way they could do this, to make the delivery more efficient, is deliberately target the KKK applications they had on hand and put them into a separate bucket.

    So they're doing this to make things more efficient, not slow down KKK application delivery. Any deliberate intentional targeting of the KKK is purely to fill the efficiency bucket they had. And further, it could well be that this efficiency improvement is outside of the rules, but that doesn't imply deliberate targeting either. They saw an opportunity to ensure better use of resources and took it.

    It could be that the NAACP didn't have as many deliveries so they weren't caught up in the efficiency program. Or, according to your scenario, the next week, they did have a ton of applications and were similarly targeted and grouped and delivered later.


    Unless you can prove that someone in the Post Office wanted to deliberately hinder KKK applications purely based on ideology, you cannot claim any wrong doing that beyond procedural.

  6. #86
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Activity Legality Probability of Occurrence Current Status JJ Position
    1) Intentional targeting of political opposition Violates Treasury regulation, IRS regulation, and IG recommendations, possibly illegal Confirmed as having happened Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, Secret Service and House Audit Committee Agreement. These are facts.
    2) Intentional delaying of processing to prevent exercise of speech rights Violates civil rights, IRS regulation and Congressional authorization acts, certainly illegal Likely occurred either through gross negligence (illegal, civil) or intentional harm (illegal, criminal) Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, DOJ and via several civil lawsuits. Not confirmed.
    3) Intentional sharing of privileged documentation to outside political groups Definitely illegal, violates IRS statute, Privacy Laws and US Code Confirmed as having happened, parties involved being investigated Currently under investigation by FBI and DOJ Doesn't indicate political wrong-doing
    4) Sharing of confidential information with the White House for political benefit. Definitely illegal, violates section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and is punishable by up to five years in jail. Confirmed as having happened. Released yesterday as part of the House investigation into this scandal, criminal investigations underway. Irrelevant for the moment - you should have been able to support your position without this. But otherwise irrelevant.
    Ok, so we agree on 1, which is that they did something which at a minimum is unethical, but its almost certainly illegal (since it is not equal protection under the law).

    2) Your assessment is an incorrect reading of my table. It is not a "might have occurred" it absolutely did happen as evidenced in the Treasury IG report. The question is whether it was due to gross negligence or intentional malfeasance. Both of those violate the law, the question whether it is a civil or criminal violation only, not whether nothing happened.

    3) Your opinion here is at odds with the Treasury report, initial FBI comments, and the IRS report. Taking confidential information from group a and giving it to their political opposition is political wrong-doing. It is criminal and it did happen. Your objection doesn't change any of those facts, this was clearly a politically criminal act, the only question remaining is the exact names of those who engaged in it and those who were complicit.

    4) This is not irrelevant for several reasons. This is an active scandal and is actively unfolding. This is part of that scandal and as such can be introduced as relevant. Further, it is relevant because part of this discussion has been around the nature of the investigations. You have dismissed the scope and relevance of those investigations and legal proceedings, but here is a perfect example of what they have produced, a further, clearly illegal act. Thus it is certainly relevant to the discussion. I am not claiming that my original point relies on this, that point has already been supported. This is an additional support to counter your belief that it has "fizzled out."

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ

    I must've missed that dull piece of administratrivia - please provide proof that P-groups were not part of any bolo.
    This point serves two purposes. First it highlights that you, intellectually, recognize that your point has lost. Leftists such as yourself will often invent words such as you have here to ridicule a point without actually engaging it directly. It highlights the intellectual vacuum so prevalent on the left. Only a true believer on the Left could argue this is "dull" or "administrativia." Neither of which offer a valid objection, rebuttal or point at all. They are purely masturbatory exercises aimed at avoiding any actual intellectual discussion.

    Further, you also engage in a strawman. I did not indicate they were not on a bolo, I pointed out that the actual Treasury IG report notes that the Bolo containing progressive groups originated after the IRS IG report's initial findings and that there were exactly 0 cases of Progressive groups being targeted due to this bolo.

    This would be comparable to saying in the Democrat controlled 1950s South that "we have areas that are black only too" and failing to notice that no white person was ever arrested for going to that area. That is the scope of your intellectual error here JJ, your logic basically implies the Jim Crow South wasn't racist, it was just a boring administrative policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It's important because shooting someone indeed does have the goal of harm;
    It is interesting reading your response because I can tell where you stopped reading my point and started responding. You stopped at the "with the goal of harm..." part rather than continuing on to the important point of "without justification by law."

    All of your examples are of people shooting someone with the goal of harm with legal justification (defense, military). But that isn't what is happening here. The IRS deliberately targeted these groups for harm without any form of legal or regulatory justification.

    There are three key elements here. Deliberate intent, harm and lack of justification.

    If I intentionally shoot a person (intent) with the goal of harming them (harm) and I have no legal reason to justify my action (lack of justification) I have committed murder.

    Likewise the IRS intentionally targeted Conservative political positions (intent) with the goal of delaying their ability to exercise their free speech rights (harm) with no legal or regulatory backing (lack of justification).

    Until you offer a rebuttal of these patently obvious facts, your "not convinced" argument is just an irrational position.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    The second example, is worded differently to mislead because now you are claiming that the 'goal is the prevention of a right' whereas, the actual goal is to determine whether they had that right in the first place.
    Again, you are showing your unfamiliarity with the facts of the case and the arguments laid out here. Both the IRS and the Treasury audits (as I've shown) did not justify those delays as investigative. The fact that they asked for documents irrelevant to determining that fact and that cases sat unprocessed despite capacity invalidates your position here. The delays were found by both to have been unfounded by administrative processes. There was no justification given for the nature of the delays or their merit, they were simply delayed. Hence, the intention is to delay exercising of that right, not to determine the right since the latter was not pursued.

    The IRS audit goes on to point out that the establishment of the Bolo list does not comply with a rationale to "determine right" since it had no such authority to pursue this method and no methodology to tie this list to determinations of actual status. Rather, the intent was to subject cases from a segment of the political spectrum to further review to longer processing times.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I agree that you can infer, insinuate or invent any scenario you wish that would fit the facts. But until there were proof of that scenario, then you have nothing more than the bare facts.
    This is an irrational denial JJ. I have offered the text (its only like three paragraphs, not a "wall of text") that supports the claim that the IRS intentionally targeted the political opposition with the intent to harm them and did so with no legal justification.

    And you know that it is supported, which is why you aren't challenging or reporting it, you are just grandstanding here, nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    The only motivation I am agreeing with is your own :"Intentional delay their processing". The others, as you yourself have said, are inconclusive, because as you have also said, by definition, investigations are inconclusive.
    This is a patently false statement. I have already supported all of it. The intent to do harm and the lack of legal justification to do so.

    Put your money where your mouth is JJ, if I'm really putting more forward here than I've supported challenge and report me. Otherwise admit that I have supported it and walk away.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So you are satisfied with condemning someone with murder just on the bare facts that the shooter killed someone? I'd believe you but your attitudes towards the Trayvon Martin murder seems to be digging deeper.
    Strawman fallacy. Murder is the intentional killing of a person with malice aforethought outside of bounds provided by the law. IE the action must be intentional, harmful and without legal justification.

    I would convict someone for murder if they shot a person intentionally, and did so with no legal justification such as self defense.

    Likewise, the I condemn the IRS here for intentionally harming conservative oriented groups with no legal justification for their having done so.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    That's the circumstantial situation - it could easily be a P-group as you yourself showed in an earlier scenario.
    Compositional fallacy. You are using the word circumstantial in two different manners here. First you are using it to argue that because you believe (no evidence) it could have been progressive groups that the nature of the action is based upon the circumstances (the common definition of the term). You are then using it in the legal definition to argue that we must infer the reason for the action rather than directly proving the case.

    Thus you are using two separate definitions of the same word in a fallacious manner and as such your argument fails.

    This could be demonstrated quite easily. Lets assume that you are right for a second about the bolo list being progressive groups (though no evidence that it could have been has been offered by you). Nothing material about the nature of the claim changes. They still intentionally targeted a political ideology to harm them without justification under the law.

    That has been shown in a direct manner (via the IG reports) not in an inferential manner which is required for it to be circumstantial under the other definition you imply.

    So please define which term you mean and support or retract that this case is "circumstantial" under that definition. Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    This is still relevant because the CCO is still part of the process. You still have to prove that he is doing it deliberately to help Obama's campaign.
    No I don't. That psychological state is irrelevant to the nature of the question. Likewise I don't need to prove a murderer did so out of anger or grief, I only need to prove they did it on purpose. I have already done so here.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Yes, but it could easily be that the KKK were targeted due to their ideology because they knew more KKK applications were coming down the pike, in the next major delivery.
    Perhaps, that would still be illegal (since it wouldn't be equal protection under the law) and illogical (since increasing processing time for a larger case load doesn't help reduce backlog and there is no justification that this bolo list would be related to relevant cases) and there is no evidence that this is the case here. Are you able to offer some? Are you able to offer anything but speculation that they knew that more conservative cases were coming in relation to progressive cases?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #87
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Note, I feel we have gone through these points again and again but I feel that you deserve a response for the efforts you have put in. However, in responding, if you have nothing further to add then I suggest we end this.

    I'm not really clear on what your goals are in order to close out his thread. Mine were complete when you helped me conclude that your scandal, such as it is, is one of administrative/process/clerical wrong-doing as opposed to actual political malfeasance. It's all I wanted all along.

    Please state what you are trying to achieve in these dialogs, otherwise, I'm going to have to bow out. I am running out of ways to describe how mind-numbingly boring I'm finding this actual scandal of yours, even to the point of reading the IRS email chain for something actually mischievous, and finding even more dullness.

    The only question about your scandal is whether it is one where laws have actually been broken or it's actually that the laws were incomplete - hence the challenges for you to demonstrate that law-breaking has occurred.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, so we agree on 1, which is that they did something which at a minimum is unethical, but its almost certainly illegal (since it is not equal protection under the law).
    Of course we do. I have never denied you your little scandal; I'm just saying that it's seems a rather dull and pedestrian one based not on nefarious political acts, as it was original billed, but of boring administrivia. Yes, rules were broken but they are rules around how a process should work; there may even be laws broken but they're just going to be dull ones regarding how procedures work; and all the chastisements, resignations and firings are all due to that alone.

    The only fascinating aspect of this thread is figuring out you can get so outraged over something so dull, but let's proceed.


    2) Your assessment is an incorrect reading of my table. It is not a "might have occurred" it absolutely did happen as evidenced in the Treasury IG report. The question is whether it was due to gross negligence or intentional malfeasance. Both of those violate the law, the question whether it is a civil or criminal violation only, not whether nothing happened.
    Challenge to support a claim. Specifically what law has been broken?
    This will help determine what kind of scandal this truly is.

    3) Your opinion here is at odds with the Treasury report, initial FBI comments, and the IRS report. Taking confidential information from group a and giving it to their political opposition is political wrong-doing. It is criminal and it did happen. Your objection doesn't change any of those facts, this was clearly a politically criminal act, the only question remaining is the exact names of those who engaged in it and those who were complicit.
    Challenge to support a claim. Specifically what law has been broken?
    Again, this will help determine what kind of scandal this truly is.

    4) This is not irrelevant for several reasons. This is an active scandal and is actively unfolding. This is part of that scandal and as such can be introduced as relevant. Further, it is relevant because part of this discussion has been around the nature of the investigations. You have dismissed the scope and relevance of those investigations and legal proceedings, but here is a perfect example of what they have produced, a further, clearly illegal act. Thus it is certainly relevant to the discussion. I am not claiming that my original point relies on this, that point has already been supported. This is an additional support to counter your belief that it has "fizzled out."
    I took the liberty to read some of the email and was bored to tears. Basically, this new so-called scandal, is an email exchange (PDF) where an IRS agent is asking for information/clarifications on the law:
    "It appears that a significant number of the [REDACTED] do file Form 900"
    "It looks like Rev. Proc 2011-15, 2011-3, IRB 322, says that an organization is assumed to be internally supported unless it meets both the 50 percent test and "offers admissions, goods or services ..." "

    All all sorts of what looks like business as normal - so feel free to be scandalous about dull tax talk between the IRS & the WhiteHouse. I'm still not quite sure why it is illegal for one branch of government to share information between each other so:

    Challenge to support a claim. Please provide a specific law that has been broken with this email exchange.

    JJ: No, but it's what Issa has been implying for months until his position was fully debunked with P-groups also being targeted.
    SQ: Which was the point of this thread that you somehow overlooked for 83 posts. Cowboy offered a link arguing that they were targeted. I have shown that while their names were offered on a list, the Treasury IG report found that they were not actually targeted. IE that progressive groups were never included in this process and therefore Cowboy's objection is invalid.

    JJ: I must've missed that dull piece of administratrivia - please provide proof that P-groups were not part of any bolo.
    This point serves two purposes. First it highlights that you, intellectually, recognize that your point has lost. Leftists such as yourself will often invent words such as you have here to ridicule a point without actually engaging it directly. It highlights the intellectual vacuum so prevalent on the left. Only a true believer on the Left could argue this is "dull" or "administrativia." Neither of which offer a valid objection, rebuttal or point at all. They are purely masturbatory exercises aimed at avoiding any actual intellectual discussion.
    Well, they are comments on how boring this so-called scandal is. Part of keeping awake is to share my boredom on the scandal itself and to relay to you what a non-event this is turning out to be. I agree it isn't always addressing your point, but that point is largely moot: I have never denied you your dose of anger - and the more evidence you supply, including the extremely dull email exchange above, does nothing to change that this is truly a manufactured scandal - one that could easily be dealt with without having to involve the rest of the country.

    Further, you also engage in a strawman. I did not indicate they were not on a bolo, I pointed out that the actual Treasury IG report notes that the
    Bolo containing progressive groups originated after the IRS IG report's initial findings and that there were exactly 0 cases of Progressive groups being targeted due to this bolo.

    Challenge to support a claim.Again, I don't deny you your little scandal, but that it is one of administrative wrong-doing than political malfeasance. Please confirm that you understand that this is my point.

    JJ:It's important because shooting someone indeed does have the goal of harm;

    This would be comparable to saying in the Democrat controlled 1950s South that "we have areas that are black only too" and failing to notice that no white person was ever arrested for going to that area. That is the scope of your intellectual error here JJ, your logic basically implies the Jim Crow South wasn't racist, it was just a boring administrative policy.

    It is interesting reading your response because I can tell where you stopped reading my point and started responding. You stopped at the "with the goal of harm..." part rather than continuing on to the important point of "without justification by law."

    All of your examples are of people shooting someone with the goal of harm with legal justification (defense, military). But that isn't what is happening here. The IRS deliberately targeted these groups for harm without any form of legal or regulatory justification.

    There are three key elements here. Deliberate intent, harm and lack of justification.

    If I intentionally shoot a person (intent) with the goal of harming them (harm) and I have no legal reason to justify my action (lack of justification) I have committed murder.

    Likewise the IRS intentionally targeted Conservative political positions (intent) with the goal of delaying their ability to exercise their free speech rights (harm) with no legal or regulatory backing (lack of justification).

    Until you offer a rebuttal of these patently obvious facts, your "not convinced" argument is just an irrational position.
    You are making a false equivalence between not following the rules (in the IRS case of not having legal/regulatory backing) and explicitly breaking the law (in the murder).

    Whereas in murder, there are exceptions that allow killing in certain cases; in the IRS example, there are likely rules/procedures to follow. When killing outside of the exceptions then it is murder but in the case of the IRS, it isn't necessarily breaking any laws; in fact, they aren't - as you yourself put it's 'legal and regulatory backing' - i.e. instructions on how to operate.

    The problem with your example is that in the IRS case, 'no legal or regulatory back', merely means that there are holes in the process. It certainly doesn't guarantee that something illegal was done, only something that was 'inappropriate'. It's a bunch of IRS administrators thinking outside of the box and working towards making a system more efficient and consistent. That they inadvertently provided ammunition for a manufactured scandal in doing so still doesn't mean they broke any laws. This is reflected in the IG report - that whatever wrong doing there is, is largely process related rather than being political malfeasance.




    JJ: The second example, is worded differently to mislead because now you are claiming that the 'goal is the prevention of a right' whereas, the actual goal is to determine whether they had that right in the first place.
    Again, you are showing your unfamiliarity with the facts of the case and the arguments laid out here. Both the IRS and the Treasury audits (as I've shown) did not justify those delays as investigative. The fact that they asked for documents irrelevant to determining that fact and that cases sat unprocessed despite capacity invalidates your position here. The delays were found by both to have been unfounded by administrative processes. There was no justification given for the nature of the delays or their merit, they were simply delayed. Hence, the intention is to delay exercising of that right, not to determine the right since the latter was not pursued.
    So if there is no justification, then you cannot conclude political malfeasance. "Hence", it could be that there was an intent to delay or there could just be laziness involved or they simply forgot or it got lost in the shuffle or they didn't keep track of it properly.

    The IRS audit goes on to point out that the establishment of the Bolo list does not comply with a rationale to "determine right" since it had no such authority to pursue this method and no methodology to tie this list to determinations of actual status. Rather, the intent was to subject cases from a segment of the political spectrum to further review to longer processing times.
    Again a process issue blaming someone for thinking outside of the box. Again, the intent that resulted in longer processing times, is a process problem and not on of political malfeasance.

    JJ:No, I have been consistent in my view of what the scandal was. And you too have been consistent. Your comments have been very bland and neutral when challenged:

    SQ: This is a contextual fallacy. You are assuming that because the IG did not say something in a one sentence version that they did not imply it then. That is clearly fallacious in application. For example, if I were to argue that the constitution does not use the word abortion therefore there is no legal protection for that activity, you could argue that I missed the meaning of the terms in the document that imply it (whatever those might be). The idea that a text must be explicit or there is no meaning is nonsensical, we can't be blamed if you are unwilling to read more than one sentence.

    JJ: I agree that you can infer, insinuate or invent any scenario you wish that would fit the facts. But until there were proof of that scenario, then you have nothing more than the bare facts.
    This is an irrational denial JJ. I have offered the text (its only like three paragraphs, not a "wall of text") that supports the claim that the IRS intentionally targeted the political opposition with the intent to harm them and did so with no legal justification.

    And you know that it is supported, which is why you aren't challenging or reporting it, you are just grandstanding here, nothing more.

    This is a patently false statement. I have already supported all of it. The intent to do harm and the lack of legal justification to do so.
    Not at all. A bulk of this has been to determine what you felt the scandal was. And from the 'apology' to the IG report, you pretty much boiled it down to:

    "The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention"

    That is all that you have supported and what I agree is your 'scandal'. Carry on, I hate to think how scandalized you'll be once you discover the internet.


    Put your money where your mouth is JJ, if I'm really putting more forward here than I've supported challenge and report me. Otherwise admit that I have supported it and walk away.
    There is no need to report you. I don't deny you that you have supported fully a scandal of non-epic proportions, one full of breaking dull rules and inadvertently triggering manufactured anger for a party that needs anger to sustain its angry voters. However, your own words show that you insinuate it to be more:

    So you can see that it was you who brought up the WH visits as a 'warning sign' - it is your insinuation that there are connections and that this needs further investigation.
    Right, which is materially different than claiming that this scandal goes all the way to the White House.




    JJ: That's the circumstantial situation - it could easily be a P-group as you yourself showed in an earlier scenario.

    Compositional fallacy. You are using the word circumstantial in two different manners here. First you are using it to argue that because you believe (no evidence) it could have been progressive groups that the nature of the action is based upon the circumstances (the common definition of the term). You are then using it in the legal definition to argue that we must infer the reason for the action rather than directly proving the case.

    Thus you are using two separate definitions of the same word in a fallacious manner and as such your argument fails.
    I believe it could be P-groups because I asked you to come up with an example and you did quite convincingly - that's the evidence. Do you wish to retract that example now?

    Secondly, in the sense that the situation could apply equally to both P-groups and C-groups, as you yourself have shown, then you cannot claim that there is any bias in the system as a whole and as such the scandal, as dull as it is, seems to have affected the Tea Party groups just because they happened to be there.


    This could be demonstrated quite easily. Lets assume that you are right for a second about the bolo list being progressive groups (though no evidence that it could have been has been offered by you). Nothing material about the nature of the claim changes. They still intentionally targeted a political ideology to harm them without justification under the law.
    Unless the law specifically says that no other thinking can be done then saying that is was done 'without justification under the law' is entirely toothless. It could be that the law needs changing to allow this targeting, in which case this is no scandal at all. Or it could be the case that the law needs changing to explicitly forbid this targeting, in which case, this scandal is just a process improvement.

    That has been shown in a direct manner (via the IG reports) not in an inferential manner which is required for it to be circumstantial under the other definition you imply.
    Of course it's direct - it was the group that happened to be new and needed specially attention.

    No I don't. That psychological state is irrelevant to the nature of the question. Likewise I don't need to prove a murderer did so out of anger or grief, I only need to prove they did it on purpose. I have already done so here.
    Again, I agree and if you want to keep a scandal based on process improvements then I won't stand in your way - it's way too amusing to see Issa fall flat on his face. Plus, it's great ammunition for the Republican propensity to manufacture scandals out of largely nothing.


    Yes, but it could easily be that the KKK were targeted due to their ideology because they knew more KKK applications were coming down the pike, in the next major delivery.

    Perhaps, that would still be illegal (since it wouldn't be equal protection under the law) and illogical (since increasing processing time for a larger case load doesn't help reduce backlog and there is no justification that this bolo list would be related to relevant cases) and there is no evidence that this is the case here. Are you able to offer some? Are you able to offer anything but speculation that they knew that more conservative cases were coming in relation to progressive cases?
    Umm, I think you're missing that we're working specifically on the analogy here. I am saying that the post office had indications that there were going to be a bunch of applications and therefore delayed the first batch. In the IRS case, they certainly had seem a spike and instituted processes to collect them together in a similar manner.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; October 13th, 2013 at 06:37 AM.

  8. #88
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I'm not really clear on what your goals are in order to close out his thread. Mine were complete when you helped me conclude that your scandal, such as it is, is one of administrative/process/clerical wrong-doing as opposed to actual political malfeasance. It's all I wanted all along.
    Except that you haven't done that. You're doing the same thing that you are doing opposite MT in another thread. You are deciding to stop responding meaningfully and simply declaring victory. You are misstating your opponents in an attempt to claim a consensus around your point that does not exist.

    For example, here you claim that your point of it being administrative is somehow shown, yet even you won't agree to that. I've pointed out several times where something was not administrative by definition or if we were to apply the same process to a case of racial discrimination you wouldn't call it administrative. Thus you argument doesn't hold, yet you claim it here without any real support or logical follow through.

    It is poor form, and indicates a weakness in your capability as a debater.

    Finally, we are still here as far as the actual debate goes (since your response adds nothing but personal opinion):

    Activity Legality Probability of Occurrence Current Status JJ Position
    1) Intentional targeting of political opposition Violates Treasury regulation, IRS regulation, and IG recommendations, possibly illegal Confirmed as having happened Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, Secret Service and House Audit Committee Agreement. These are facts. Political Scandal status ceded
    2) Intentional delaying of processing to prevent exercise of speech rights Violates civil rights, IRS regulation and Congressional authorization acts, certainly illegal Likely occurred either through gross negligence (illegal, civil) or intentional harm (illegal, criminal) Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, DOJ and via several civil lawsuits. Not confirmed. Evidence provided confirming activity, status as illegal also confirmed.
    3) Intentional sharing of privileged documentation to outside political groups Definitely illegal, violates IRS statute, Privacy Laws and US Code Confirmed as having happened, parties involved being investigated Currently under investigation by FBI and DOJ Doesn't indicate political wrong-doing Shown to violate the law, and given the fact that it was released to political opponents indicates political wrong-doing.
    4) Sharing of confidential information with the White House for political benefit. Definitely illegal, violates section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and is punishable by up to five years in jail. Confirmed as having happened. Released yesterday as part of the House investigation into this scandal, criminal investigations underway. Irrelevant for the moment - you should have been able to support your position without this. But otherwise irrelevant. Shown to be relevant in that it is part of the unfolding scandal, calls for more investigation and violates the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Of course we do. I have never denied you your little scandal; I'm just saying that it's seems a rather dull and pedestrian one based not on nefarious political acts, as it was original billed, but of boring administrivia. Yes, rules were broken but they are rules around how a process should work; there may even be laws broken but they're just going to be dull ones regarding how procedures work; and all the chastisements, resignations and firings are all due to that alone.
    All of which applies to the Jim Crow laws too right? Those were all just boring administrative rules regarding procedural work?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Challenge to support a claim. Specifically what law has been broken?
    This will help determine what kind of scandal this truly is.
    First, let me point out that you seem to misunderstand our system if you think that a specific code is required here. The abscence of a code permitting this action makes it illegal. Government doesn't get to act just because it feels like it, it acts only because it is authorized under the law. A cop can't arrest you because he doesn't like what you are doing. He can only arrest you because you have violated some law or because his arrest complies with some authorized action.

    Likewise, the IRS employees have no legal justification for taking this action (delaying of conservative cases) and as such their actions are, by default, violations of the law.

    It does however violate specific restrictions as well.

    The actions of the IRS employees responsible for this delay violates the "Civil Service Reform Act of 1978" which prohibits Federal Employees from considering political affiliation in any personnel or regulatory action.

    It also violates Article 5, Chapter 15 of the US Code. Federal employees may not " use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office;"

    Your counter will, of course, be that this doesn't apply to these kind of [insert Progressive appeal to ridicule fallacy]. But SCOTUS has already ruled against you here in Yick Wo v. Hopkins in which they found that any policy, procedure, law or regulation that is applied unequally, even if it is written without explicit discrimination, still violates equal protection under the law and is, therefore, a violation of their civil rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Challenge to support a claim. Specifically what law has been broken?
    Again, this will help determine what kind of scandal this truly is.
    It violates Title 5, Chapter 5 of the US Code which provides the only exceptions for release of confidential records, none of which allow for releasing of personal information to political opponents.

    No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be—
    (1) to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties;
    (2) required under section 552 of this title;
    (3) for a routine use as defined in subsection (a)(7) of this section and described under subsection (e)(4)(D) of this section;
    (4) to the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of title 13;
    (5) to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable;
    (6) to the National Archives and Records Administration as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether the record has such value;
    (7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought;
    (8) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual;
    (9) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee;
    (10) to the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of the duties of the Government Accountability Office;
    (11) pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or
    (12) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711 (e) of title 31.

    It also violates Title 26, § 601.702 of the IRS Code. This regulation requires the deletion of any Personally Identifiable Information before release, which was not done here.
    I took the liberty to read some of the email and was bored to tears. Basically, this new so-called scandal, is an email exchange (PDF) where an IRS agent is asking for information/clarifications on the law:

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Challenge to support a claim. Please provide a specific law that has been broken with this email exchange.
    I provided the specific law in post 86. Your challenge is invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You are making a false equivalence between not following the rules (in the IRS case of not having legal/regulatory backing) and explicitly breaking the law (in the murder).
    Challenge to support a claim. Please provide the legal justification that allows a federal agency to undertake a course of action not provided for by the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Whereas in murder, there are exceptions that allow killing in certain cases;
    No there aren't. There are exceptions that make homicide not murder, not that make murder justifiable.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    in the IRS example, there are likely rules/procedures to follow.
    I've asked you for this before and you demured. So now either support or retract this statement. Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that there are rules/procedures that allow the IRS to target based upon political affiliation.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So if there is no justification, then you cannot conclude political malfeasance.
    Intentional restriction of someone's rights based upon their political affiliation without legal justification is political malfeasance!

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Again a process issue blaming someone for thinking outside of the box.
    So if a cop arrested a person for being black that would just be "thinking outside the box" right? You're cool with that kind of action too right?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    There is no need to report you.
    Then at least have the emotional maturity to admit that I have supported it. In your last post you argued that I hadn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I believe it could be P-groups because I asked you to come up with an example and you did quite convincingly - that's the evidence. Do you wish to retract that example now?
    None of this response counters charge of Compositional Fallacy. This is a red herring fallacy instead. You are attempting to switch the topic of conversation to something else rather than deal with the charge. Either deal with the compositional fallacy or withdraw the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Unless the law specifically says that no other thinking can be done then saying that is was done 'without justification under the law' is entirely toothless.
    So if a police officer arrests you for wearing a purple shirt that is ok because nothing in the law specifically prohibits him from doing so?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Of course it's direct - it was the group that happened to be new and needed specially attention.
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Umm, I think you're missing that we're working specifically on the analogy here. I am saying that the post office had indications that there were going to be a bunch of applications and therefore delayed the first batch. In the IRS case, they certainly had seem a spike and instituted processes to collect them together in a similar manner.
    And your analogy still fails because the increase in applications (in general) does not provide a legal justification for explicitly targeting a group based upon its ideology.

    It also demonstrates profoundly inadequate critical thinking skills. How does it make sense for the IRS to increase processing steps in the face of increasing workload? How is it anything but idiocy to increase the number of steps and intentionally delay processing in order to handle a backlog?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #89
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    JJ: I'm not really clear on what your goals are in order to close out his thread. Mine were complete when you helped me conclude that your scandal, such as it is, is one of administrative/process/clerical wrong-doing as opposed to actual political malfeasance. It's all I wanted all along.

    Except that you haven't done that. You're doing the same thing that you are doing opposite MT in another thread. You are deciding to stop responding meaningfully and simply declaring victory. You are misstating your opponents in an attempt to claim a consensus around your point that does not exist.

    For example, here you claim that your point of it being administrative is somehow shown, yet even you won't agree to that. I've pointed out several times where something was not administrative by definition or if we were to apply the same process to a case of racial discrimination you wouldn't call it administrative. Thus you argument doesn't hold, yet you claim it here without any real support or logical follow through.

    It is poor form, and indicates a weakness in your capability as a debater.
    Firstly, without stating your specific goal, I cannot continue; this is turning into one of those super long threads that actually end up going in circles and not achieving anything. Responding meaningfully is meaningless if there is no actual end-goal - I certainly don't have one - I'm just replying back to you on-automatic and have been doing so for a couple of rounds.

    I have no position to defend nor am I challenging yours.

    I have also not declared any victory: in fact, technically, I lost this because I thought you were defending a scandal of political malfeasance and you weren't. So at that point, we should have been done - I withdrew my questioning and you continue thinking this is a scandal.

    Finally, I've moved you side comment about the MT thread into the appropriate place if you want to take it up there.

    Note also, I have with-held my responses to your last post until we know what the purpose of the rest of the discussion is.




    ---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------



    @Sigfried:

    Not sure why you removed your posting since I am largely in agreement with you: that neither side has proof that there is any political motivation. Hence for me, this is largely a non-event and Squatch wasn't defending that point anyway.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; October 15th, 2013 at 03:46 PM.

  10. #90
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    @Sigfried:

    Not sure why you removed your posting since I am largely in agreement with you: that neither side has proof that there is any political motivation. Hence for me, this is largely a non-event and Squatch wasn't defending that point anyway.
    I didn't actually. Someone else removed it. Glad you felt my assessment was accurate.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. #91
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I didn't actually. Someone else removed it. Glad you felt my assessment was accurate.
    I sense a trap ... strange how this site works. Nevertheless, if you ever get to repost, I'd like to properly respond: I did say mostly accurate.

  12. #92
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I have no position to defend nor am I challenging yours.
    This is not an accurate representation of your posts thus far. Your position is clear, these activities are only procedural in nature, and are not problematic.

    That view point is either not representative of the facts or represents a set of rules that would also apply to things such as Jim Crow laws or other discriminatory practices.

    Your view that this is only an administrative oversight ignores the obvious fact that this was an intentional attempt to deny people their First Amendment rights. That that denial originates at the Office of the Chief Counsel. That confidential information was shared both with the White House and with opposing groups in direct and clear violation of Federal Law and that people were harmed by that violation.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #93
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is not an accurate representation of your posts thus far. Your position is clear, these activities are only procedural in nature, and are not problematic.

    That view point is either not representative of the facts or represents a set of rules that would also apply to things such as Jim Crow laws or other discriminatory practices.

    Your view that this is only an administrative oversight ignores the obvious fact that this was an intentional attempt to deny people their First Amendment rights. That that denial originates at the Office of the Chief Counsel. That confidential information was shared both with the White House and with opposing groups in direct and clear violation of Federal Law and that people were harmed by that violation.
    I'm not denying you your scandal in any way. What are you taking about? In my reply to Sigfried's strangely deleted post I wanted to clarify that.

    My view is that the scandal I was originally looking for, the one that implicated the Administration to use the IRS is not the one you ended up presenting. I'm calling yours 'administrative', 'procedural', 'clerical', etc just to distinguish between the two scenarios. One where Obama has a secret dialog in one of the, apparently many, meetings with the IRS to instruct them to behave in a certain way. And the other, one largely non-malicious in intent; even though guidelines were broken and perhaps even laws.

    You are offering the latter scenario, not the former. So we have nothing further to discuss. Again, what is your purpose?

  14. #94
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    My view is that the scandal I was originally looking for, the one that implicated the Administration to use the IRS is not the one you ended up presenting.
    The problem is that you seem to be intentionally seeking to downplay the nature of the scandal. We do know there was malicious intent for example, I showed this earlier. We do know that laws were broken and we do know that the White House was involved in law breaking (though this came out more recently). We also know that the Administration was involved, while it isn't clear if President Obama himself was involved, this was a political appointee, IE part of his administration.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I'm calling yours 'administrative', 'procedural', 'clerical', etc just to distinguish between the two scenarios.
    And that is sophistry, those words have specific meanings which you are not using. This was not due to a "procedure" or a "clerical" decision. It was a conscious decision on the part of administration officials to delay Conservative oriented organizations for political reasons. You can label that in disingenuous ways, but it is nothing more than sophistry.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #95
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The problem is that you seem to be intentionally seeking to downplay the nature of the scandal.
    And you seem to be seeking to use every adjective I use distinguish between the two cases as if it really applied to your own. It's quite amusing really ...

    We do know there was malicious intent for example, I showed this earlier.
    See? It's even considered malicious now! Either way, you have indeed shown intent, though only in the sense that they were intentionally doing their job, but malicious intent? No, I think this is new - when did you show that this was malicious.

    We do know that laws were broken and we do know that the White House was involved in law breaking (though this came out more recently).
    Right, that's why you can't use it to support a point that you had when we started when you were convinced of law breaking. And when someone is actually convicted then you can use this point. Until then, it is nothing.

    We also know that the Administration was involved, while it isn't clear if President Obama himself was involved, this was a political appointee, IE part of his administration.
    Exactly, if you can't point to an actual conspiracy leading up to Obama; after all that was the original billing, then we have nothing to discuss.

    And that is sophistry, those words have specific meanings which you are not using. This was not due to a "procedure" or a "clerical" decision. It was a conscious decision on the part of administration officials to delay Conservative oriented organizations for political reasons. You can label that in disingenuous ways, but it is nothing more than sophistry.
    True, but you do keep using all my other adjectives so I have to seek a way to distinguish a real scandal; one that involves a Presidential-level conspiracy to do harm, vs. what increasingly looks like people doing their job.

    Do you realize that you are mainly arguing against yourself - the evidence you reveal to support a conspiracy isn't the one I thought you guys had in mind. So there's no amount of debating that can change that. I still have no idea what kind of 'win' you're even looking for - it just seems like word games at this point. Please also stop avoiding the question - what is your purpose in this thread?

    edit: Perhaps you should also read this PDF of PPP poll and bear this in mind before continuing.

    PPP’s latest round of conspiracy-theory related questions finds that Republicans
    are more likely than Democrats to believe various government-related conspiracy theories,
    similar to results we found on our first round of conspiracy polling last April. Overall, 36% of
    Americans and 62% of Republicans believe that the Obama Administration is secretly trying to
    take everyone’s guns away; just 14% of Democrats believe the same. One in four Americans say
    that President Obama is secretly trying to figure out a way to stay in office beyond 2017 –
    including almost half of Republicans (44%). And 26% of Americans think that Muslims are
    covertly implementing Sharia Law in American court systems, while 55% don’t think so and
    another 19% aren’t sure. There’s a huge partisan breakdown on this one as well – 42% of
    Republicans fear Sharia Law making its way into America’s courts while just 12% of Democrats
    agree.
    13% believe that the U.S. government engages in so-called “false flag” operations, where the
    government plans and executes terrorist or mass shooting events and blames those actions on
    others, 70% disagree. Republicans (21%) are more than twice as likely as Democrats (9%) to
    believe this theory. 19% say there is a secret society such as Skull and Bones that produces
    America’s political and financial leaders to serve the wealthy elite. And 17% of voters said they
    think a group of world bankers are slowly eliminating paper currency to force most banking
    online – only to cut the power grid so regular citizens can’t access money and are forced into
    worldwide slavery. Nearly one in three Republicans (27%) believe the electronic currency theory
    while just 10% of Democrats agree.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; October 17th, 2013 at 04:41 PM.

  16. #96
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    And you seem to be seeking to use every adjective I use distinguish between the two cases as if it really applied to your own. It's quite amusing really ...
    It is quite common when your opponent engages in such blatant sophistry. When someone in a debate continuously changes their terms to avoid the conclusion, rather than actually attacking the premises directly, it is important to point out that they are doing so.

    If someone were to attack the classic,

    All men are mortal
    Socrates is a man
    Therefore Socrates is mortal

    by objecting and saying, "well really Socrates was a homo sapien." The logical response would be to point out that in this context the argument still holds. Simply changing the names in the premise and conclusion doesn't invalidate the argument.

    Likewise, when you continue to shift terms from intentional, to political to malicious, I am obliged to follow to show the weakness of your reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    See? It's even considered malicious now! Either way, you have indeed shown intent, though only in the sense that they were intentionally doing their job, but malicious intent? No, I think this is new - when did you show that this was malicious.
    You need to read through the thread again I think or consult the dictionary. Malicious is the intent to cause harm. I have shown, on several occasions, that the intent was to cause harm to conservative groups by suppressing their free speech rights for an extended period.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Right, that's why you can't use it to support a point that you had when we started when you were convinced of law breaking. And when someone is actually convicted then you can use this point. Until then, it is nothing.
    This is poor critical thinking on your part.

    1) My support doesn't rely on that last piece of evidence, it is supported independently.
    2) I can still use it as support, because the question is the factual nature of the claim, is it true or not. The evidence shows that it is, indeed, true.
    3) Convictions are irrelevant, juries do not indicate factual natures here. Further I have offered evidence, you've offered pouting. One of those supports an argument, the other is only an emotional display. If you can offer more than that, please do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Exactly, if you can't point to an actual conspiracy leading up to Obama; after all that was the original billing, then we have nothing to discuss.
    Strawman argument. The claim was not made that this was directed by President Obama personally. That is your obsession. It is irrelevant to the nature of this scandal and its implications whether The President was complicity or grossly negligent. Both are derelictions of duty.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    looks like people doing their job.
    I've been pretty cool with this particular piece of sophistry until now. Challenge to support a claim. Support or Retract that the Office of the Chief Counsel was "doing its job" when it directed these delays. As I pointed out on several occasions, there is no provision in law or regulation for this kind of action. As such, there is no provision for this to be part of their job. That is an invention by JJ and needs to be supported or retracted.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    edit: Perhaps you should also read this PDF of PPP poll and bear this in mind before continuing.
    Appeal to popularity fallacy. Please review a fallacy list in the future to avoid these basic mistakes.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #97
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    @Whoever removed Sigfried's post, please add it back: there are points there that deserve raising.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is quite common when your opponent engages in such blatant sophistry. When someone in a debate continuously changes their terms to avoid the conclusion, rather than actually attacking the premises directly, it is important to point out that they are doing so.

    ...

    Likewise, when you continue to shift terms from intentional, to political to malicious, I am obliged to follow to show the weakness of your reasoning.
    Sigh. I have already conceded this point quite a while ago when I went from saying you didn't have a scandal to admitting that you do indeed find it scandalous (and therefore, by definition, it is a scandal). These 'shifting terms' are my further attempts to distinguish your scandal from my scandal. So in copying me then you are not only defeating that purpose but arguing with yourself, since clearly your own sense of scandal is flexible too.

    Why do you keep having to beat people up even after a concession? It is quite irksome. I've continually given you the win so this is just being malicious on your part. Unless you have some goal in mind, this seems as if you want to beat me up because I think your 'scandal' amounts to nothing.

    That said, making this distinction between our two versions of the scandal has been settled a while ago, which was why I don't even know why you're debating. And again, with an unstated goal, there is little point continuing. Why do you refuse to answer? You know I'll never admit that your 'scandal' really has any merit outside of Republican conspiracy circles with the evidence you have provide so far.


    You need to read through the thread again I think or consult the dictionary. Malicious is the intent to cause harm. I have shown, on several occasions, that the intent was to cause harm to conservative groups by suppressing their free speech rights for an extended period.
    Not at all, the only thing you have shown is that there is intention to perform a job that has the side effect of harm. You have not shown that there is intention to perform a job to cause harm as its primary motivation. We already went through this because you said you didn't care about the underlying philosophy, you only care that harm was done. So again, we have nothing to discuss.

    Again, we have already gone through this and you already said you weren't interested in this line of debate. So I pulled out. You don't get to re-argue a point that we have already both agreed is not relevant (or rather, you stated was irrelevant and I agreed).


    JJ: Right, that's why you can't use it to support a point that you had when we started when you were convinced of law breaking. And when someone is actually convicted then you can use this point. Until then, it is nothing.

    This is poor critical thinking on your part.

    1) My support doesn't rely on that last piece of evidence, it is supported independently.
    2) I can still use it as support, because the question is the factual nature of the claim, is it true or not. The evidence shows that it is, indeed, true.
    3) Convictions are irrelevant, juries do not indicate factual natures here. Further I have offered evidence, you've offered pouting. One of those supports an argument, the other is only an emotional display. If you can offer more than that, please do so.
    1. That's why I ignored it.
    2. You can but I'm still going to ignore it - there should have been sufficient evidence based on the letter (which didn't show intentional harm) or the IG report (which didn't show criminal activity). You're the one that has to keep piling on evidence even though you'd stated originally that only the letter was needed.
    3. All you have offered is that possibly a law has been broken; you don't have a person named or arrested or on trial to show that the law has any relevance to the case at hand. And you definitely have no jury or trial to indicate that direct harm was done, which contrary to your point is the only important thing. Just saying a law is broken is entirely irrelevant - you could show that a sodomy law was broken but then who cares. So I'm saying, who cares? Only those people that have a vested interest in piling onto a boring scandal some boring laws, that could possibly have been broken; (e.g. the Fox News contributor who happens to be litigating the case).

    Also, you failed to show any laws were broken from the IG report.

    JJ:Exactly, if you can't point to an actual conspiracy leading up to Obama; after all that was the original billing, then we have nothing to discuss.

    Strawman argument. The claim was not made that this was directed by President Obama personally. That is your obsession. It is irrelevant to the nature of this scandal and its implications whether The President was complicity or grossly negligent. Both are derelictions of duty.
    I'm not arguing anything. I am pointing out that we have parted ways and you are arguing for no stated purpose (other than perhaps to convince me that I should share in your scandacious feelings). I agree that this wasn't your claim and stopped being interested at that point. So stop stating things that are untrue: I am not saying that you were making this claim - I am saying that that's what I thought the scandal was; this isn't the first time you've done this either - it just makes you a sore loser.

    If you want to hold Obama accountable for the millions of people under his command then go ahead - sounds like straw grasping to me -- but straws are all you have at this point, so grasp and insinuate away. It reveals more about your partisan stripes than anything against the President.

    Also, regarding Obama, it should be noted it was you that brought up the White House link in the first place (#60 for recap of the trail) where we had the following exchange:

    JJ: In context then you are saying that the White House involvement is unsubstantiated. Yes?
    S: Yes, that is still under investigation. An appropriate response would be to be agnostic, perhaps slightly leaning towards it (given the number of times the relevant staff visited the White House).

    Your response, fueled from a propensity on your side's affinity to conspiracy theories (see link in last post), is the only 'obsession' going on here. It's not my obsession at all but what the entire scandal was originally about and what you are insinuating by 'leaning towards' it.

    It is why I cannot take you seriously at all in any of this so-called evidence of intentional political malfeasance. You have zero credibility no matter what evidence you produce because at the end of the day, you still are still fishing for that tenuous Obama-link. To call what you have as a scandal is laughable but I give you that since it is your Tea Party harmed; it makes sense that you find it scandalous even without the WH/Obama links. For the rest of us we moved on months ago after Issa was discredited for hiding information.



    JJ: looks like people doing their job.
    I've been pretty cool with this particular piece of sophistry until now. Challenge to support a claim. Support or Retract that the Office of the Chief Counsel was "doing its job" when it directed these delays. As I pointed out on several occasions, there is no provision in law or regulation for this kind of action. As such, there is no provision for this to be part of their job. That is an invention by JJ and needs to be supported or retracted.
    I don't need to support anything - I am merely interpreting the poor evidence that you have to support your own case that it is any more than people doing their job. You have to remember that my original strategy was to have you provide the evidence for why you thought this was a conspiracy; at the time it was because I was convinced there was no Obama-link to be had.

    The claim that they are doing more than their actual job is entirely yours, so the onus is on you to prove that they went beyond their jobs to conspire to do actual harm. I am concluding from the evidence that you have given that at worst there is a lapse is judgement. Even the single sentence that you yourself chose to represent the entire IG report for your case agrees ("The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention").

    If you want to challenge anyone, you should challenge yourself for providing such poor evidence for your own position. And at this point, I don't even really care - it's a phony scandal that shakes the world not at all; even if you manage to support everything, it's still a big bureaucratic yawnster of a scandal.

    If it helps, the above phrase should really be read as 'looks like, from the evidence you provided, people just doing their job'.

    edit: Perhaps you should also read this PDF of PPP poll and bear this in mind before continuing.
    Appeal to popularity fallacy. Please review a fallacy list in the future to avoid these basic mistakes.
    Not at all. Again, you are turning everything into a debate or an argument but there is no argument here. I am merely pointing out that you sound like a conspiracy theorist trying to squeeze something out of nothing. I imagine you have probably spent a bunch of time on Obama's birth certificate too. Which is fine if that's what you want to do to fire yourself up against Obama; it's certainly a good substitute for something actually substantive.

    I'd rather go for the substantive stuff (e.g. Snowden, NSA, WikiLeaks, Manning) - that's all I'm saying. It's why I keep wondering why you care about a bureaucratic error in judgement.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; October 20th, 2013 at 12:10 AM.

  18. #98
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    So in copying me then you are not only defeating that purpose but arguing with yourself, since clearly your own sense of scandal is flexible too.
    Because you are unwilling to use terms in accordance with their common usage and definition. Every time you claim that the scandal isn't X, you have done so when the scandal has been shown to be X. If you wish to use a term that differs from what I have shown and you are able to support it, then it can move on. What it appears to me is that you are attempting to create a difference without actually having to support that difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Not at all, the only thing you have shown is that there is intention to perform a job that has the side effect of harm. You have not shown that there is intention to perform a job to cause harm as its primary motivation.
    Again, please review the thread again, I have already shown that he primary intent here was to cause harm because there was no other motivation. Both reports state that these actions were not taken in accordance with law or regulation, but in order to delay conclusions of the cases.

    If the sole reason someone engages in an act is to delay another person's exercising of their rights, that is malicious, by definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    1. That's why I ignored it.
    You ignored it because it shows a clear crime by the White House. The timing of release is irrelevant to the nature of a scandal. I brought this section in because of your earlier dismissal of ongoing investigations. You attempted to handwave their importance away, but this is evidence of their significance. Another crime has been discovered.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    2. You can but I'm still going to ignore it - there should have been sufficient evidence based on the letter (which didn't show intentional harm) or the IG report (which didn't show criminal activity)
    This is a patently false statement. The IRS report found that documents covered under privacy laws had been released (violation of the law). The Treasury IG report found that the law was applied unequally across the political spectrum (a violation of the right to equal protection under the law).


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    3. All you have offered is that possibly a law has been broken;
    Again, this is intellectually dishonest, at best. Let me repost the summary of the thread and you can see that clearly laws have been broken;



    Activity Legality Probability of Occurrence Current Status JJ Position
    1) Intentional targeting of political opposition Violates Treasury regulation, IRS regulation, and IG recommendations, possibly illegal Confirmed as having happened Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, Secret Service and House Audit Committee Agreement. These are facts. Political Scandal status ceded
    2) Intentional delaying of processing to prevent exercise of speech rights Violates civil rights, IRS regulation and Congressional authorization acts, certainly illegal Likely occurred either through gross negligence (illegal, civil) or intentional harm (illegal, criminal) Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, DOJ and via several civil lawsuits. Not confirmed. Evidence provided confirming activity, status as illegal also confirmed.
    3) Intentional sharing of privileged documentation to outside political groups Definitely illegal, violates IRS statute, Privacy Laws and US Code Confirmed as having happened, parties involved being investigated Currently under investigation by FBI and DOJ Doesn't indicate political wrong-doing Shown to violate the law, and given the fact that it was released to political opponents indicates political wrong-doing.
    4) Sharing of confidential information with the White House for political benefit. Definitely illegal, violates section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and is punishable by up to five years in jail. Confirmed as having happened. Released yesterday as part of the House investigation into this scandal, criminal investigations underway. Irrelevant for the moment - you should have been able to support your position without this. But otherwise irrelevant. Shown to be relevant in that it is part of the unfolding scandal, calls for more investigation and violates the law.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    you don't have a person named or arrested or on trial to show that the law has any relevance to the case at hand.
    You're kidding on this right? So, with your logic, the Jack the Ripper murders weren't really crimes since there was no arrest right?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    If you want to hold Obama accountable for the millions of people under his command then go ahead - sounds like straw grasping to me
    Wait, so a person that visits the White House more than any other administration official is really just some nameless bureaucrat that the President couldn't have known about? That is a new level of confirmation bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Also, regarding Obama, it should be noted it was you that brought up the White House link in the first place
    You do realize that the link you are offering has you bringing it up first right?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I am merely pointing out that you sound like a conspiracy theorist trying to squeeze something out of nothing.
    Appeal to ridicule fallacy. I would really recommend reading a list of fallacies.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #99
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    I've juggled things around a bit: The upper part is to establish that we have no real argument - that I have already conceded that you have no debate on the primary issue. And the lower part is a secondary section to satisfy my curiosity as to why you believe there is enough to be scandalous about; I'm only continuing this because you seem to want to convince me of something and I'm curious as to what it is. But it does nothing to change the substantive part of the debate that you pretty much only have a mini-scandal on your hands, and have done since the beginning.

    Personally, I think you should jump to the end and tell me what it is that you want because the build-up to your mega conclusion is getting repetitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because you are unwilling to use terms in accordance with their common usage and definition. Every time you claim that the scandal isn't X, you have done so when the scandal has been shown to be X. If you wish to use a term that differs from what I have shown and you are able to support it, then it can move on. What it appears to me is that you are attempting to create a difference without actually having to support that difference.
    That's already conceded history. It's largely the only victory you have though since the primary difference is that it has no connection to Obama. And since you have have zero proof of any link to Obama nor was this the scandal you were pushing then we have nothing to discuss. Hence, you can win your 'scandal' and I remain convinced this is not a Scandal.

    You do realize that the link you are offering has you bringing it up first right?
    I was quoting the end of a chain of discussion on this point. Let me remind you how this all started ...

    S: Hence why it is being investigated. The fact that the IRS head had more white house visits than any other major official is a warning sign. No one is arguing it is 100% proven the President ordered anything. They are saying that at a minimum he was negligent in his oversight and that a further investigation should be undertaken to see how much knowledge he had.

    JJ: Sounds like unsubstantiated invented scandal to me then. Good luck with the investigation!

    This began in tin-foil hat territory which is why you will always fail in these kinds of debates regarding Obama-level scandals. As you point out, you have zero evidence hence the only possible scandal you could have minimal of zero political importance. So here we are 5 or 6 weeks later and you still have nothing.

    Appeal to ridicule fallacy. I would really recommend reading a list of fallacies.
    I'm not using it to say that you are wrong - so there's no fallacy. I'm just pointing out that this is how I have always seen this debate: facts vs tinfoil.


    --- **************** ---

    All the points below are really against your version of events. I'm not challenging that they are worthy of a 'scandal' per Republican low tolerances for such things but I'm seeking to see what's behind it. Continue if you wish but the best you will end up with is what I have already conceded to you. The worst, is that I suspect, that this too will fizzle to nothing.

    --- **************** ---



    Again, please review the thread again, I have already shown that he primary intent here was to cause harm because there was no other motivation. Both reports state that these actions were not taken in accordance with law or regulation, but in order to delay conclusions of the cases.
    And I showed you alternative motivations: laziness, incompetence, or forgetting the rules or any number of circumstances. Just because the IG didn't report them it didn't mean they didn't happen. Again, your summary of the IG doesn't mention these 'motivations' so you case here is still unsupported.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please provide support that it is impossible for any motivation for the act. Please also show that the primary intent is to cause harm and not just bureaucrats doing their job?

    If the sole reason someone engages in an act is to delay another person's exercising of their rights, that is malicious, by definition.
    You haven't shown that this is the sole reason; all you have shown is that you haven't come up with any or that the IG didn't report any. Both are unsupported.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support that it is impossible for any other reason for engaging in the act. That a more pedestrian explanation isn't possible.

    You ignored it because it shows a clear crime by the White House. The timing of release is irrelevant to the nature of a scandal. I brought this section in because of your earlier dismissal of ongoing investigations. You attempted to handwave their importance away, but this is evidence of their significance. Another crime has been discovered.
    When someone is indicted then come back. Until then, you have speculation that this law is even important enough for people outside of the Fox News bubble sphere to care about. If anything it looks like a crime from the IRS-side, not the White House side since the laws are protecting the private IRS information. Do you have this backwards?
    Challenge to support a claim. Please prove that the White House has broken laws. All the laws you have shown have been committed on the IRS side.

    This is a patently false statement. The IRS report found that documents covered under privacy laws had been released (violation of the law).
    So why hasn't someone been indicted? Granted that a law has been broken but is it systematically, historically been broken or is this a one-off?

    The Treasury IG report found that the law was applied unequally across the political spectrum (a violation of the right to equal protection under the law).
    Yet you easily demonstrated that the same scenario could have happened to a progressive group.

    3. All you have offered is that possibly a law has been broken;
    Again, this is intellectually dishonest, at best. Let me repost the summary of the thread and you can see that clearly laws have been broken;
    Repost all you like - when someone has been indicted or imprisoned then you have a point that breaking these laws are worthy of anyone's attention outside of Fox.

    You're kidding on this right? So, with your logic, the Jack the Ripper murders weren't really crimes since there was no arrest right?
    Nope - you can claim whatever you want in this but until you have a person that is going to have to stand in court then you have no case. Or rather you never really had a case to begin with - these are ongoing investigations resulting in zero arrests or indictments thus far. And we know who sent the emails, so if laws have been broken, why has no one been legally punished?

    Wait, so a person that visits the White House more than any other administration official is really just some nameless bureaucrat that the President couldn't have known about? That is a new level of confirmation bias.
    I know that Obama's attention to detail is legendary but I think the confirmation bias (or rather tinfoil-bias) is on you here.



  20. #100
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    I'm not using it to say that you are wrong - so there's no fallacy. I'm just pointing out that this is how I have always seen this debate: facts vs tinfoil.
    Perhaps it would help if a third party jumped in here and noted that the tone of your posts throughout your exchange with Squatch has been dismissive and condescending. As such, the way you have worded your posts in this thread can be seen as an appeal to the audience of the discussion that Squatch does indeed "sound like a conspiracy theorist trying to squeeze something out of nothing" (i.e. ridiculing and mocking Squatch's position as a means to show it is false) , even though you have done absolutely nothing to show that this is the case, nor have you substantiated your own points well enough to warrant such condescension. Squatch is correct when he asserts that you have committed an appeal to ridicule.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    I know that Obama's attention to detail is legendary but I think the confirmation bias (or rather tinfoil-bias) is on you here.
    Perhaps it would help to proofread your posts to avoid appeals (to the audience) to ridicule your opponent ("tinfoil-bias") via mockery.

  21. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
 

 
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •