XPost: alt.society.liberalism, can.politics, talk.politics.guns   
   From: davidjohnston29@block.com   
      
   On 6/4/2013 10:47 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:   
   > "David Johnston"  wrote in message   
   > news:kom9lf$pdc$2@dont-email.me...   
   >> On 6/4/2013 8:29 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:   
   >>> "David Johnston"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:kom15m$p2q$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>> On 6/4/2013 5:16 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:   
   >>>>> "David Johnston"  wrote in message   
   >>>>> news:koifd3$osj$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>> On 6/3/2013 9:35 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:   
   >>>>>>> "David Johnston"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>> news:koi70c$2h0$2@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>> On 6/3/2013 6:11 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> "David Johnston"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>> news:kofmi3$ufv$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2013 10:42 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Why This Scandal Is Different   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Peggy Noonan   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes when you’re writing part of a column you keep getting   
   >>>>>>>>>>> close   
   >>>>>>>>>>> to the meaning of what you want to say but you don’t quite get   
   >>>>>>>>>>> there,   
   >>>>>>>>>>> the full formulation of the idea eludes you. Then two days   
   >>>>>>>>>>> later,   
   >>>>>>>>>>> relaxing in conversation with friends, the thought comes to you   
   >>>>>>>>>>> whole,   
   >>>>>>>>>>> and you think: That’s what I meant to say. That’s what I was   
   >>>>>>>>>>> trying to   
   >>>>>>>>>>> get.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> This week I had one of those moments. I kept trying, the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> paragraph   
   >>>>>>>>>>> kept not quite working, the deadline came.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I got an email last night that had the effect of a clarifying   
   >>>>>>>>>>> conversation. It was from a smart friend who works in   
   >>>>>>>>>>> government. He   
   >>>>>>>>>>> understood the point I was trying to make about how the current   
   >>>>>>>>>>> IRS   
   >>>>>>>>>>> scandal is different from previous ones and more threatening to   
   >>>>>>>>>>> the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> American arrangement. I had written that this scandal isn’t a   
   >>>>>>>>>>> discrete   
   >>>>>>>>>>> event in which a president picks up a phone and tells someone   
   >>>>>>>>>>> in the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> White House to look into the finances of some steel industry   
   >>>>>>>>>>> executives, or to check out the returns of some guy on an   
   >>>>>>>>>>> enemies   
   >>>>>>>>>>> list.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> But my friend got to the essence. He wrote, “The left likes to   
   >>>>>>>>>>> say,   
   >>>>>>>>>>> ‘Watergate was worse!’ Watergate was bad—don’t get me wrong.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> But it   
   >>>>>>>>>>> was elites using the machinery of government to spy on elites.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> . . .   
   >>>>>>>>>>> It’s something quite different when elites use the machinery of   
   >>>>>>>>>>> government against ordinary people. It’s a whole different ball   
   >>>>>>>>>>>  game.”   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Ordinary people?  What ordinary people are we talking about?   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> As opposed to the elites   
   >>>>>>>>>     Can't you even read a simple text for comprehension ?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I wasn't asking for a definition of "ordinary".  I was asking what   
   >>>>>>>> ordinary people were having the machinery of government used   
   >>>>>>>> against   
   >>>>>>>> them in this case.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The ordinary people who tried to form groups and applied to the IRS   
   >>>>>>> for   
   >>>>>>> legal purposes and where then (way) over investigated and had their   
   >>>>>>> applications delayed for years   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> What gives you the idea that those were ordinary people rather than   
   >>>>>> the "elite"?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What gives you the idea that they are not   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The fact that they registered their political organizations as 501 c 4   
   >>>> apolitical organizations to hide their identities.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> HUH ?   
   >>>     Are you really this stump ignorant  ?   
   >>> Those registration documents are public record.   
   >>   
   >> The donors are not public record.  That's what the dispute is about,   
   >> as I understand it.   
   >>   
   >   
   > No   
   >     That is NOT what the dispute is about..   
      
   So what is it about?  WHy did they register political groups as   
   apolitical groups?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)