IRS abuse investigator is an Obama donor

[Truth Detector]

like I said... all you got is faux outrage. THAT's why this story doesn't have any legs. NOBODY can show a single decision that Bosserman made where she soft-pedaled any aspect of her investigation based upon her personal political affiliation.

boooooring.

::yawn::

Dear dunce; it is far from faux outrage. But your dishonest hyper partisan rhetoric has been noted.

The American Center for Law and Justice is hardly a right wing organization; here is their view of this naked partisanship from the Obama Administration:

Obama Picks Political Supporter to Oversee IRS Scandal Investigation

The selection of a political supporter of President Obama to head up the Justice Department’s criminal investigation of the IRS targeting scheme is "troubling" and "creates a serious conflict of interest."

So says the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

.............

“This is a troubling development that raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation by the Justice Department," says Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. "The Obama administration has promised to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal.

"But appointing an avowed political supporter of President Obama to head up the Justice Department probe is not only disturbing but puts politics right in the middle of what is supposed to be an independent investigation to determine who is responsible for the Obama administration's unlawful targeting of conservative and tea party groups because of their political beliefs. This development creates a serious conflict of interest and raises more questions and doubts about the Obama administration's promise to get to the bottom of what happened—to reveal the facts and the truth about the IRS targeting scheme.”

http://www.charismanews.com/us/4235...upporter-to-oversee-irs-scandal-investigation

 

[Truth Detector]

you made a prediction. I merely asked what your track record was on such predictions and suggested that, perhaps, folks needn't put a lot of stock in your prognostications.

Politics is a game. In America, this game has evolved to be one that is played between two different political philosophies. In other countries, the evolution of the game has allowed for more than two choices.... not so much here. We can look at the two possible viable choices and make a determination as to which one's platforms and philosophies we prefer, and we vote for them... of course winning matters. Why would we cast our ballots for a candidate standing on a platform we did not want to see enacted in our society?

Do you have any examples of these "other" choices these "other countries" have a choice of?

How many choices do you think one has in American elections?

Once again you illustrate what an uninformed dunce you are.

Here's a list of parties on the ballot from the 2012 elections:

AMERICA'S PARTY / AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY:
Tom Hoefling J.D. Ellis
Presidential Nominee

J.D. Ellis (Tennessee)
Vice Presidential Nominee

AMERICAN THIRD POSITION PARTY:
Merlin Miller Harry Bertram
Presidential Nominee

Harry Bertram (West Virginia)
Vice Presidential Nominee

CONSTITUTION PARTY:
Virgil Goode Jim Clymer
Presidential Nominee

Jim Clymer (Pennsylvania)
Vice Presidential Nominee

GREEN PARTY:
Dr. Jill Stein (Massachusetts)
Presidential Nominee

Cheri Honkala (Pennsylvania)
Vice Presidential Nominee

JUSTICE PARTY:
Rocky Anderson Luis Rodriguez
Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson (Utah)
Presidential Nominee

Luiz Rodriguez (Illinois)
Vice Presidential Nominee

LIBERTARIAN PARTY:
Gov Gary Johnson Judge Jim Gray
Former Governor Gary Johnson (New Mexico)
Presidential Nominee

Former Superior Court Judge Jim Gray (California)
Vice Presidential Nominee

OBJECTIVIST PARTY:
Tom Stevens (New York)
Presidential Nominee

Alden Link (Florida)
Vice Presidential Nominee

PARTY OF SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION (PSL):
Peta Lindsay (California)
Presidential Nominee

Yari Osorio (New York)
Vice Presidential Nominee

PEACE & FREEDOM PARTY:
Rosanne Barr (Hawaii)
Presidential Nominee

Cindy Sheehan (California)
Vice Presidential Nominee

PROHIBITION PARTY:
Lowell "Jack" Fellure (West Virginia)
Presidential Nominee

Toby Davis (Mississippi)
Vice Presidential Nominee

REFORM PARTY USA:
Andre Barnett (New York)
Presidential Nominee

Ken Cross (Arkansas)
Vice Presidential Nominee

SOCIALIST PARTY USA (SP-USA) / LIBERTY UNION PARTY:
Stewart Alexander (California)
Presidential Nominee

Alejandro "Alex" Mendoza (Texas)
Vice Presidential Nominee

SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY:
Jerome "Jerry" White (Michigan)
Presidential Nominee

Phyllis Scherrer (Pennsylvania)
Vice Presidential Nominee

SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY (SWP):
James Harris (New York)
Presidential Nominee

Maura DeLuca (Nebraska)
Vice Presidential Nominee

 

[Ishmael Pequod]

I guess Obama might as well appoint the muslim brotherhood to investigate Benghazi.

 

[Ishmael Pequod]

you made a prediction. I merely asked what your track record was on such predictions and suggested that, perhaps, folks needn't put a lot of stock in your prognostications.

Politics is a game. In America, this game has evolved to be one that is played between two different political philosophies. In other countries, the evolution of the game has allowed for more than two choices.... not so much here. We can look at the two possible viable choices and make a determination as to which one's platforms and philosophies we prefer, and we vote for them... of course winning matters. Why would we cast our ballots for a candidate standing on a platform we did not want to see enacted in our society?

No, this isn't a game to those who love their country. You're the problem.

 

[maineman]

I started to read your list of other viable political alternatives for the American voters and was glad I had just swallowed my mouthful of coffee instants prior.

And it is a game.. a very serious game with enormous consequences. I happen to agree much more strongly with the various elements of the democratic party platform than I do with the republican party platform. The day that changes... the day that the democratic party stops standing for the things that I stand for... is the day I will cease being a democrat. Until then, they've got my vote because I believe in the platform upon which their candidates stand.

 

[maineman]

Dear dunce; it is far from faux outrage. But your dishonest hyper partisan rhetoric has been noted.

The American Center for Law and Justice is hardly a right wing organization; here is their view of this naked partisanship from the Obama Administration:

Obama Picks Political Supporter to Oversee IRS Scandal Investigation

The selection of a political supporter of President Obama to head up the Justice Department’s criminal investigation of the IRS targeting scheme is "troubling" and "creates a serious conflict of interest."

So says the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

.............

“This is a troubling development that raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation by the Justice Department," says Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. "The Obama administration has promised to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal.

"But appointing an avowed political supporter of President Obama to head up the Justice Department probe is not only disturbing but puts politics right in the middle of what is supposed to be an independent investigation to determine who is responsible for the Obama administration's unlawful targeting of conservative and tea party groups because of their political beliefs. This development creates a serious conflict of interest and raises more questions and doubts about the Obama administration's promise to get to the bottom of what happened—to reveal the facts and the truth about the IRS targeting scheme.”

http://www.charismanews.com/us/4235...upporter-to-oversee-irs-scandal-investigation

Bosserman is a career DOJ employee. If you have any evidence - other than fluff opinion pieces - that would indicate that her political persuasion has impacted the way she has done her job, you would have presented it long ago. You don't. Do you really think that anybody in the Obama administration give a flying fuck how their personnel decisions "appear" to partisan hacks who hate everything they do anyway? They don't. Obama does not have to face the voters ever again. We have elected him and reelected him. He's doing his job and he really could care less if YOU are disappointed in him. really.

 

[Ishmael Pequod]

I started to read your list of other viable political alternatives for the American voters and was glad I had just swallowed my mouthful of coffee instants prior.

And it is a game.. a very serious game with enormous consequences. I happen to agree much more strongly with the various elements of the democratic party platform than I do with the republican party platform. The day that changes... the day that the democratic party stops standing for the things that I stand for... is the day I will cease being a democrat. Until then, they've got my vote because I believe in the platform upon which their candidates stand.

I'm a constitutional conservative. Are you a socialist, communist? Where are you coming from?

 

[zappasguitar]

The investigator is biased and you are dishonest for supporting a biased investigator. People like you are the problem.

So just as we all had previously assumed...you've got NOTHING to back up your partisan attitude.

 

[Truth Detector]

Bosserman is a career DOJ employee. If you have any evidence - other than fluff opinion pieces - that would indicate that her political persuasion has impacted the way she has done her job, you would have presented it long ago. You don't. Do you really think that anybody in the Obama administration give a flying fuck how their personnel decisions "appear" to partisan hacks who hate everything they do anyway? They don't. Obama does not have to face the voters ever again. We have elected him and reelected him. He's doing his job and he really could care less if YOU are disappointed in him. really.

Dear dunce; once again it is not about the JOB she is doing, it is about the political bias she would bring to any investigation of an Administration she is a supporter and donor of.

But alas; I am trying to have a coherent debate with an uninformed dishonest partisan hack, why would I expect more from you?
Carry on Commander.

 

[maineman]

Dear dunce; once again it is not about the JOB she is doing, it is about the political bias she would bring to any investigation of an Administration she is a supporter and donor of.

But alas; I am trying to have a coherent debate with an uninformed dishonest partisan hack, why would I expect more from you?
Carry on Commander.

most everyone in America has a "political bias". It stops very few of us from doing our jobs effectively.

Again... do you HAVE ANY evidence that Bosserman has soft pedaled her investigation because she happens to be a democrat?

 

[Ishmael Pequod]

most everyone in America has a "political bias". It stops very few of us from doing our jobs effectively.

Again... do you HAVE ANY evidence that Bosserman has soft pedaled her investigation because she happens to be a democrat?

Your premise is your problem. She doesn't have to be proven biased. There are supposed to be standards and you don't want to admit that. You are supporting a concept that is an example of cronyism. Its pitifully hilarious.

 

[maineman]

I'm a constitutional conservative. Are you a socialist, communist? Where are you coming from?

so... my guess is your political philosophy MOST closely aligns itself with the republican party. I am sure that one of the long list of irrelevant little splinter "parties" might, in fact, more closely mirror your own beliefs, but you know, as well as anyone with half a brain, that those parties are never going to put their candidate in the white house. So you decide to vote for the republican, I would imagine. If not, you're wasting your vote and you know it. Look at the stupid Green Party voters in 2000 in the great state of New Hampshire.... they voted for Nader and, because of a few thousand of those principled granola crunchers, George W. Bush was elected president. Do you really think that, if you had asked them, whether Al Gore or George Bush more closely mirrored their political philosophy, they would have said Dubya?

 

[maineman]

Your premise is your problem. She doesn't have to be proven biased. There are supposed to be standards and you don't want to admit that. You are supporting a concept that is an example of cronyism. Its pitifully hilarious.

and these standards are created by.... you? I assume?

 

[Truth Detector]

I started to read your list of other viable political alternatives for the American voters and was glad I had just swallowed my mouthful of coffee instants prior.

Dear dunce; I was merely pointing out what an uninformed dishonest buffoon you are when you made this claim:

Politics is a game. In America, this game has evolved to be one that is played between two different political philosophies. In other countries, the evolution of the game has allowed for more than two choices

I asked what other choices other nations had in their politics and illustrated how many different choices Americans have in their elections contrary to the dullard nonsense you spam the thread with. Of course I received no answer to that question because you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

And it is a game.. a very serious game with enormous consequences.

Only dunces think politics is merely a game. But then, when it comes to dishonest leftist dunces, yes, it is all about winning and seldom about substance...look at Obama, the most inept, inexperienced and partisan dunce to ever inhabit the White House.

I happen to agree much more strongly with the various elements of the democratic party platform than I do with the republican party platform. The day that changes... the day that the democratic party stops standing for the things that I stand for... is the day I will cease being a democrat. Until then, they've got my vote because I believe in the platform upon which their candidates stand.

Who said that you didn't agree with them? I think that from your many moronic posts, there is no doubt you are all for Marxist class envy, wealth redistribution schemes and the arrogant position that you think you and your "deciders" know best what is good for everyone and moronically place that faith in Government. You are also of the hypocritical dullard ideology that thinks Government is great and works, but ironically only if YOUR deciders are in charge.

You represent an illiterate, uninformed, dullard ideology that is perfectly willing to spend other peoples money in order to maintain the political power they desire more than anyone else's well-being by duping idiots into thinking they can get something for nothing.

Yay you Commander!

Carry on.

 

[Ishmael Pequod]

so... my guess is your political philosophy MOST closely aligns itself with the republican party. I am sure that one of the long list of irrelevant little splinter "parties" might, in fact, more closely mirror your own beliefs, but you know, as well as anyone with half a brain, that those parties are never going to put their candidate in the white house. So you decide to vote for the republican, I would imagine. If not, you're wasting your vote and you know it. Look at the stupid Green Party voters in 2000 in the great state of New Hampshire.... they voted for Nader and, because of a few thousand of those principled granola crunchers, George W. Bush was elected president. Do you really think that, if you had asked them, whether Al Gore or George Bush more closely mirrored their political philosophy, they would have said Dubya?

You didn't answer my question. Do you consider yourself a socialist, communist, what?

 

[Truth Detector]

and these standards are created by.... you? I assume?

There you go again with the dishonest dimwitted questions feigning your blatant ignorance about ethical Government standards. Gee I don't know dimwit; who do you think sets those standards?

What a complete and utter dumbass.

 

[Ishmael Pequod]

and these standards are created by.... you? I assume?

By leaders who want the truth, but we don't have that. Why not a person from each party?

 

[maineman]

You didn't answer my question. Do you consider yourself a socialist, communist, what?

I consider myself a moderate democrat.

 

[maineman]

By leaders who want the truth, but we don't have that. Why not a person from each party?

Please tell me... were you scrambling to have a liberal democrat appointed to serve along Ken Starr during the whitewater investigation?

just curious.

And why do you presume that someone who is a democrat is incapable of wanting the truth?

 

[maineman]

Dear dunce; I was merely pointing out what an uninformed dishonest buffoon you are when you made this claim:

Politics is a game. In America, this game has evolved to be one that is played between two different political philosophies. In other countries, the evolution of the game has allowed for more than two choices

I asked what other choices other nations had in their politics and illustrated how many different choices Americans have in their elections contrary to the dullard nonsense you spam the thread with. Of course I received no answer to that question because you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

there are eleven different political parties with representatives in Great Britain's House of Commons. Three of them have significant numbers of members. How does that stack up with the USA?

Your lengthy list of Alternative political parties in America accounts for HOW MANY, exactly, elected representatives at the national level? Just curious.

Only dunces think politics is merely a game. But then, when it comes to dishonest leftist dunces, yes, it is all about winning and seldom about substance...look at Obama, the most inept, inexperienced and partisan dunce to ever inhabit the White House.

I never said that politics was MERELY a game. Don't put words in my mouth, asshole.

Who said that you didn't agree with them? I think that from your many moronic posts, there is no doubt you are all for Marxist class envy, wealth redistribution schemes and the arrogant position that you think you and your "deciders" know best what is good for everyone and moronically place that faith in Government. You are also of the hypocritical dullard ideology that thinks Government is great and works, but ironically only if YOUR deciders are in charge.

You represent an illiterate, uninformed, dullard ideology that is perfectly willing to spend other peoples money in order to maintain the political power they desire more than anyone else's well-being by duping idiots into thinking they can get something for nothing.

When I lived in Maine, I actively participated in local and state party committee meetings where our state party's platform was created. I don't let anyone decide anything for me. And as I said, the minute my party strays away from my beliefs, I'll leave it. And, I happen to know that government works BEST when civil folks from both sides of the aisle come to the middle and craft policy that is acceptable to both sides. Neither political party in America seems willing to do that at the national level.