XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: dead@gone.com   
      
   On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:05:13 -0700, Jason wrote:   
      
   > In article , Zepp  wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >> >> > >> > Zepp should get dizzy from all his pathetic spinning..  but   
   >> >> > >> > then he's been dizzy for a long time..   
   >> >> > >> >   
   >> >> > >> >   
   >> >> > >> Let us know when you have some figures that address that.   
   >> >> > >> You'll need them if you want to show that the IRS was, in fact,   
   >> >> > >> being partisan.   
   >> >> > >>   
   >> >> > >> If the numbers indicate a partisan bias, then the guilty need   
   >> >> > >> to be punished.  But we need actual evidence, not just bullshit   
   >> >> > >> noise from the far right.   
   >> >> > >   
   >> >> > >The IRS has clearly stated that they focused on conservative   
   >> >> > >groups such as tea party groups. What more information do you   
   >> >> > >need?   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> > Did they? How many of those groups applied compared with liberal   
   >> >> > ones or groups that the law was originally designed for?   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> > >You remind me OJ's lawyers. They claimed he was not guilty of   
   >> >> > >murdering his wife. Millions of people watched the trial on   
   >> >> > >television and a vast majority of those people said that the   
   >> >> > >evidence indicated that OJ was guilty.   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> > You really need to learn how to think clearly.   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> > >That's OK--OJ has still been in prison for the last several years   
   >> >> > >and that is a good thing.   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> > Your analogy is totally false.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> IRS had admitted guilt in this case. Why are you trying to be an   
   >> >> advocate for the IRS?   
   >> >   
   >> > Who's doing that?   
   >>   
   >> Nor has the IRS 'admitted guilt'. One spokesperson apologized for   
   >> targeting 'conservative groups', but the evidence suggests that there   
   >> may not have been a political bias.   
   >   
   > Why would the spokesperson apologize for targeting conservative groups   
   > if the IRS had NOT targeted conservative groups? You are not making any   
   > sense.   
      
   Because the employee who did so may have been wrong, or even a plant.   
   It's already obvious that the IRS was not targeting teabaggers only.   
   >   
   > Do you work for the IRS? Are you a lawyer?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)