Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Sirota's a serial exaggerationist, but even assuming everything he says is 100% true, how does that excuse the IRS's systematic exclusion of an entire political movement?
I could point out similar onesie-twosie stories to these from the Clinton administration as well. But then we'd further degenerate into what you're doing. Using the possibility of past wrongdoing to excuse the current (and far more widespread)
You do realize that your approach, left unchecked, would only lead to more and more brazen rounds of abuse next time.
For the record, I don't want my government involved in any of these kinds of things. The irony you're missing is that these are the same IRS hacks you guys are depending on to expand federal influence even further, even in effect becoming our neighborhood health police. The IRS shouldn't be monitoring speech at all to decide who does or doesn't get a cookie. It defies the meaning of the 1st amendment.
Exactly. Which is why turning this into a R vs. D thing is the height of imbecility. Thinking this will have any effect on the elections is the height of imbecility.
If you were truly serious about your stance on the things I bolded, you wouldn't be participating in that argument, you would be discussing how best to reform the current system to shield from further abuses, regardless of party.
But look at your posts. You're one of the ringleaders in the fingerpointing. Methinks you don't actually believe the way you want us to think you do.