This is sensible but not completely accurate.
...the IRS like many other federal bureaucracies tends to be staffed by
people -- especially at the management level -- who believe in robust,
activist government. In other words: it is staffed mainly by Democrats.
And however nonpartisan the organization is supposed to be, it cannot
help but reflect the culture of the people who comprise it. The IRS,
being led by and staffed with activist-minded Democrats, cannot help but
reflect that worldview. The culture reinforces itself because adherence
to the culture is the only way to move up. Dissenters and contrarians
do not last long in an organization like the IRS (any more than they do
at the FBI or EPA or DoJ)....
It is more accurate to say that the 'IRS is....led and staffed by activist-minded Ruling Class members.' Remember, friends, that Tricky Dick Nixon established the EPA and GWB signed "No Child Truly Educated."
That's Ruling Class crapola with Republican lineage.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
From your "source""
But there are many careerists in the IRS for whom the job is an avenue to power over their fellow men -- the power to tax is the power to destroy, after all, and many people find this power intoxicating.
What a huge, stinking pile of horse manure! This is fantasy dreamed up by your "Ace". No studies, no stats, no evidence of any kind.
He can't even keep up with the news that the entire Daily Caller
"157 visits" BS has been thoroughly debunked.
No need for studies. History is the source of knowledge here.
157 visits BS? Debunked? By the liberal debunkers of course.
The only thing that has been debunked is that Obama is not a lyin' ass'd America hater.
Obvious here that Jim still believes that the brutal murders of American Citizens on American soil was due to a spontaneous reaction to a "despicable anti-Islam video".
If you don't Jim, Tell us what Obama and Hillary meant when they said that. Please enlighten us to why they trotted out that lie.
I don't remember this uproar over the IRS targeting NAACP groups in 2005.
The Shulman White House visits "scandal" has been debunked by everyone who has actually examined the White House visitor logs and researched and reported what they really meant.
brutal murders of American Citizens on American soil
Keep up, Anon. Libya is on the African continent, which last time I checked was not "American soil". And a CIA outpost is not American soil either, so don't try that one.
I do not believe that the attack in Benghazi was "due" to a spontaneous reaction a video. But the CIA apparently did in the very beginning. That said, there is no evidence to rule out that the attackers used regional protests over the video as cover in approaching and attacking the outpost.
What Obama and Hillary meant was based on CIA reporting at the time. Why does that matter? Are you hoping retroactively that he lost the election because of what happened in Benghazi...if only he hadn't "blamed" the video.
And why the hell are we talking about Benghazi on this thread? Got nothing on IRS-gate?
Even the convicted criminal Issa has given up on Benghazi. No doubt the IRS scandal palooza will uncover more Fast & Furious pronouncements of smoking guns.
Libya is on the African continent, which last time I checked was not "American soil"
It was considered to be an embassy, ergo US soil. Wrong there, Jimbo.
the CIA apparently did in the very beginning
Wrong again! The CIA said no such thing until Obozo/Clinton told them to say so.
Even the convicted criminal Issa
Also wrong. His BROTHER was convicted of the GTA. (D) talking points are getting desperate, eh?
A CIA outpost is not an embassy. Wrong again, Dadbo.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the CIA was told to say anything by the president and SOS. None.
Also wrong. Issa was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, plead guilty to a charge of possession of an unregistered firearm, and was sentenced to six month's probation and a fine. That would make him a convicted criminal.
Anon 7:09. You can debunk the Daily Caller's phony 157 visits "scandal" yourself by going to the White House Visitor Access Record, searching on Shulman and seeing for yourself.
Jim, BOLO, Google it. Once again you will find yourself on the wrong side of history. But I'm sure you're used to it.
I know all about the BOLO list. I've been telling everyone in the news media I can think of to get a hold of it. It's supposedly an Excel spreadsheet, so it probably has more than three terms like "tea party", "patriot", and "9/12" on it.
It also has "progressive" on it. The Progressive Texas group, a liberal organization, got the same questions and delays that the conservatives are complaining about.
"Patriot" is not an exclusively conservative term, despite what you may think. Patriot Majority is a liberal group that based on what we know of the BOLO list WOULD HAVE BEEN subject to the same scrutiny.
No one has YET to put forward ANY evidence that conservative groups were treated inequitably by the IRS. This "scandal" is built almost entirely on false assumptions.
There are medications for your delusions, Jim.
I don't have the delusion that the Commie-in-Chief would SIGN the memo.
What Obama and Hillary meant was based on CIA reporting at the time.
Wrong. Contemporaneous accounts of the armed attack--from the consulate--were very clear.
CIA "thought" was edited at State and the WH before it was released.
It's not news that Hildebeeste is a liar, nor that the Commie-in-Chief is a liar.
What IS news is that the Commie-in-Chief checked out and hit the sack while US citizens were being slaughtered. He did what he's done best: voted "present" and left for a political rally.
Benghazi attacks were on the American Consulate AND the annex. The American consulate is US SOIL. PERIOD. Every single ratification agreement in the UN in the last 40 years agrees upon that point. Or are you redefining that Jim?
I doubt you do "nuance", but just in case, this is from the US State Department website:
"While diplomatic spaces remain the territory of the host state, an embassy or consulate represents a sovereign state." [emphasis added]
The very next sentence states that international rules "designate an attack on an embassy as an attack on the country it represents."
Nobody disputes that America was attacked. However, clearly this was NOT an attack on American soil.
Post a Comment