Impressive woman speaks at IRS hearings

[PaulS]

So your whole arguement is that I said "basically the whole Tea Party" when in fact some polls say a majority felt that way and you claim that I made up my statement?



So, let's see. There is a lunatic fringe on both sides but you choose to post a thread mentioning the lunatic fringe on the left?

I certainly wasted time reading this thread.

[mekcotuit]

Ah, maybe we could have a moderator step in and shut this crap down when vitriolic comments like this are directed at other members? Just too nasty for a light hearted online community.

"Stop moving the goal posts every time you back yourself into a corner, and you'll be taken more seriously.
You'd be better off responding to even less of my posts, because you aren't presenting yourself very well."

[Jim in CT]

I'll end my posting on this thread by re-iterating that I admire the woman in the video for reminding the feds that it's not up to them to choose whether ot not to grant our liberties to those with whom they disagree. These career politicians need to be reminded that any authority they have comes from us...not the other way around. These liberties are not bestowed upon us by empty suits in Washington, they are bestowed upon us by a higher power. It's not for politicians to decide who has the right to petition the government and who doesn't.

If we want to say that all groups who engage in the political process are ineligible for this tax status, fine. But the feds can't bestow favorable status on groups with which they agree, and deny that status to groups with which they disagree.

Paul S, I'm sure you can agree with that. The fight these people in DC are fighting is your fight too. The freedoms they demand are your freedoms too.

Adding insult to injury, the woman in charge of the IRS divivion which targeted conservatives (the IRS is freely admitting this, by the way), was tapped by the Obama administration for a promotion to a new gig overseeing the administration of Obamacare. She should have been fired for the gross violations that happened under her watch, but because the victims were conservatives, and because the President is Obama, she gets promoted.

That lady who murdered 3 people in an armored car robbery and is now a professor at Columbia...maybe Obama can appoint her to head the FBI.

And not all tea partiers are birthers

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'll end my posting on this thread by re-iterating that I admire the woman in the video for reminding the feds that it's not up to them to choose whether ot not to grant our liberties to those with whom they disagree.

She is wrong. We are no longer governed by a constitutionally limited central power nor do we any longer possess unalienable rights. The federal administrative state has legally unlimited power to do as it wishes so long as it twists the meanings of clauses in the Constitution, which it doesn't follow anyway. And the basis of this progressive state is that all rights are granted by the government. And those who disagree with or threaten to undo the administrative state, especially those who wish to revert to a previous constitutional republic, are enemies of the state, and can be dealt with as such.

These career politicians need to be reminded that any authority they have comes from us...not the other way around. These liberties are not bestowed upon us by empty suits in Washington, they are bestowed upon us by a higher power.

No. Whatever authority, right, well being that we possess is granted by government authorities and expert bureaucrats. It is we who have the empty suits, and it is the government who will provide them. Notions of a "higher power" than government are retrograde and silly.

It's not for politicians to decide who has the right to petition the government and who doesn't.

Of course politicians have that power as they have collectively granted it to themselves. As the purveyors of government, it is they who grant rights.

If we want to say that all groups who engage in the political process are ineligible for this tax status, fine. But the feds can't bestow favorable status on groups with which they agree, and deny that status to groups with which they disagree.

This administrative hybrid of Federal Government absolutely can bestow favor on those who support it. That is only "natural." And it is only right that it deny status to those who would destroy it.

Paul S, I'm sure you can agree with that. The fight these people in DC are fighting is your fight too. The freedoms they demand are your freedoms too.

Do not be so sure. Far more people agree with the administrative state than you might think. Probably a majority, wittingly or unwittingly. It is the new "baseline" that Spence refers to but does not define. It has replaced the old, "outdated", constitutional baseline. The "functional" freedoms which are granted by government are far more convenient than the legal freedoms protected by the Constitution. The Constitutional individual freedoms are prescribed by an onerous individual responsibility. The collective freedoms granted and prescribed by government are attached only with the responsibility of acceding to that government. Life is less complex, "freer", when lived by government dictate and responsibility. The freedoms fought for by tea-partiers are not so favored by as many Americans as you would wish.

And not all tea partiers are birthers

But they are an enemy of the State.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So your whole arguement is that I said "basically the whole Tea Party" when in fact some polls say a majority felt that way and you claim that I made up my statement?



So, let's see. There is a lunatic fringe on both sides but you choose to post a thread mentioning the lunatic fringe on the left?

I certainly wasted time reading this thread.

That's not my whole argument. I was merely pointing out that by your own admission, you have no idea whatsoever what % of the tea party believes he is a Muslim. Amazingly, you feel justified in painting the whole tea party with that "birther" brush.

Here is my other point...it's not just the fringe on the left that wants to silence conservatives, which you would know if you followed the story this thread is about. The IRS doesn't represent the "fringe" left, they represent the federal government. And yet they sought to harass and silence conservatives, guilty of nothing more than orderly political discourse.

That's my point. And it's irrefutable. The IRS, under this administration, used their might to target folks based solely on their political beliefs. I'm not talking about the fringe. It was you who brought the fringe into this by discussing "birthers". If a few whacky conservatives say Obama wasn't born here, that's nowhere near the same thing as the IRS targeting conservatives.

No one is forced to listen to a few kooky conservatives. The IRS can seize your house, and put you in prison. Not exactly the same thing.

Don't you agree?