IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Political Groups In 2012 Ele (1 Viewer)

[RCon]

We do have a policy....as I stated before. It's kept for a period of time and then purged. If we as users want to keep it longer it's on us to take the necessary measures. You suggested that was "terrible" policy and I didn't (still don't) understand why. Doesn't matter though...we can move on.

Without going into it a whole lot more, the reason I think it's bad policy is because, generally, attorneys don't like to be surprised at trial or during discovery. Counsel wants to know going in what evidence there is, both for and against. In a way, allowing end-users to keep their own copies of e-mail, separate from the servers, is like allowing users to randomly take copies of company documents home with them. When the company later decides to shred the document, the attorney is going to be pissed when an unknown copy of the (presumed shredded) document shows up in an employee's car during discovery.

So your issue was with allowing the user to keep info on their computer outside the email retention policies. Got it. No policy in the world is going to fix this issue for an attorney. You can't write a policy that prevents this. It's impossible. The best you'd be able to do is use a document library package instead of allowing attachments in email. We have that in some areas. We use Oracle's Content Management suite in some areas of our organization. Even then, there is nothing preventing the user from storing a doc on their desktop in addition to (or in lieu of) loading it to that app unless, of course, what you gave them was only a terminal of sorts. That's highly problematic for most companies.

It's pretty simple to disable the use of PST files in Outlook. It's also pretty simple to give end-users read-only access to their local desktops. It's reasonably simple to disable web sites such as Dropbox, Gmail, etc. at the firewall level (although this costs some money in software or hardware, plus administrative expertise).

It's also very simple to write a formal policy stating that users aren't allowed to do X (e.g. take copies of documents home, or store e-mail on local drives), and will be reprimanded or fired if caught doing X (whether or not the technology exists to enforce it). At the very least, having such a formal, written policy can provide some legal protection for the company in certain instances.

I think we're on the same page here now, though.

Well, like I said before, you could give them a CRT terminal only, but that's not a real solution that could work...not in today's technological world. That's essentially what you're proposing with the read only access. I can't even think of a job where "read only" access to a desktop is feasible. What industry were you thinking of when making this proposal exactly? Agree that disabling various sites is simple...we do it all the time. Issue is the individual and what they store on their PCs vs what's kept on a server. Of course, one could have a backup strategy that backs up everything on every PC every day and keep it forever. That's terribly unrealistic as well, but i did misspeak before. You COULD come up with a policy in theory. It wouldn't be practical or realistic for real world application though.

Curious, I can't conceive of an industry where most employees would need access to their local hard drives. I've done IT consulting for law firms, recruiting firms, banking firms, mortgage firms, construction firms, and others, both large and small, and most of them lock users out from storing data on the local desktops. The ones that do allow local access generally have very strict policies regarding what can be stored there. For example, attorneys and paralegals are often allowed to check documents out to their local drives for work while mobile, but those documents are automatically checked back in when the user reconnects. Ditto for e-mail; there might be an OST which caches a local copy of the user's mailbox, but once the user reconnects, that local copy syncs back to the server.

 

[The Commish]

We do have a policy....as I stated before. It's kept for a period of time and then purged. If we as users want to keep it longer it's on us to take the necessary measures. You suggested that was "terrible" policy and I didn't (still don't) understand why. Doesn't matter though...we can move on.

Without going into it a whole lot more, the reason I think it's bad policy is because, generally, attorneys don't like to be surprised at trial or during discovery. Counsel wants to know going in what evidence there is, both for and against. In a way, allowing end-users to keep their own copies of e-mail, separate from the servers, is like allowing users to randomly take copies of company documents home with them. When the company later decides to shred the document, the attorney is going to be pissed when an unknown copy of the (presumed shredded) document shows up in an employee's car during discovery.

So your issue was with allowing the user to keep info on their computer outside the email retention policies. Got it. No policy in the world is going to fix this issue for an attorney. You can't write a policy that prevents this. It's impossible. The best you'd be able to do is use a document library package instead of allowing attachments in email. We have that in some areas. We use Oracle's Content Management suite in some areas of our organization. Even then, there is nothing preventing the user from storing a doc on their desktop in addition to (or in lieu of) loading it to that app unless, of course, what you gave them was only a terminal of sorts. That's highly problematic for most companies.

It's pretty simple to disable the use of PST files in Outlook. It's also pretty simple to give end-users read-only access to their local desktops. It's reasonably simple to disable web sites such as Dropbox, Gmail, etc. at the firewall level (although this costs some money in software or hardware, plus administrative expertise).

It's also very simple to write a formal policy stating that users aren't allowed to do X (e.g. take copies of documents home, or store e-mail on local drives), and will be reprimanded or fired if caught doing X (whether or not the technology exists to enforce it). At the very least, having such a formal, written policy can provide some legal protection for the company in certain instances.

I think we're on the same page here now, though.

Well, like I said before, you could give them a CRT terminal only, but that's not a real solution that could work...not in today's technological world. That's essentially what you're proposing with the read only access. I can't even think of a job where "read only" access to a desktop is feasible. What industry were you thinking of when making this proposal exactly? Agree that disabling various sites is simple...we do it all the time. Issue is the individual and what they store on their PCs vs what's kept on a server. Of course, one could have a backup strategy that backs up everything on every PC every day and keep it forever. That's terribly unrealistic as well, but i did misspeak before. You COULD come up with a policy in theory. It wouldn't be practical or realistic for real world application though.

Curious, I can't conceive of an industry where most employees would need access to their local hard drives. I've done IT consulting for law firms, recruiting firms, banking firms, mortgage firms, construction firms, and others, both large and small, and most of them lock users out from storing data on the local desktops. The ones that do allow local access generally have very strict policies regarding what can be stored there. For example, attorneys and paralegals are often allowed to check documents out to their local drives for work while mobile, but those documents are automatically checked back in when the user reconnects. Ditto for e-mail; there might be an OST which caches a local copy of the user's mailbox, but once the user reconnects, that local copy syncs back to the server.

Is this what you meant by "read only"? If so, it's completely different than what it seemed like you meant initially. To me "read only" is just that....you can only read. You can't create docs (even if stored of a network drive etc) nada.

 

[RCon]

We do have a policy....as I stated before. It's kept for a period of time and then purged. If we as users want to keep it longer it's on us to take the necessary measures. You suggested that was "terrible" policy and I didn't (still don't) understand why. Doesn't matter though...we can move on.

Without going into it a whole lot more, the reason I think it's bad policy is because, generally, attorneys don't like to be surprised at trial or during discovery. Counsel wants to know going in what evidence there is, both for and against. In a way, allowing end-users to keep their own copies of e-mail, separate from the servers, is like allowing users to randomly take copies of company documents home with them. When the company later decides to shred the document, the attorney is going to be pissed when an unknown copy of the (presumed shredded) document shows up in an employee's car during discovery.

So your issue was with allowing the user to keep info on their computer outside the email retention policies. Got it. No policy in the world is going to fix this issue for an attorney. You can't write a policy that prevents this. It's impossible. The best you'd be able to do is use a document library package instead of allowing attachments in email. We have that in some areas. We use Oracle's Content Management suite in some areas of our organization. Even then, there is nothing preventing the user from storing a doc on their desktop in addition to (or in lieu of) loading it to that app unless, of course, what you gave them was only a terminal of sorts. That's highly problematic for most companies.

It's pretty simple to disable the use of PST files in Outlook. It's also pretty simple to give end-users read-only access to their local desktops. It's reasonably simple to disable web sites such as Dropbox, Gmail, etc. at the firewall level (although this costs some money in software or hardware, plus administrative expertise).

It's also very simple to write a formal policy stating that users aren't allowed to do X (e.g. take copies of documents home, or store e-mail on local drives), and will be reprimanded or fired if caught doing X (whether or not the technology exists to enforce it). At the very least, having such a formal, written policy can provide some legal protection for the company in certain instances.

I think we're on the same page here now, though.

Well, like I said before, you could give them a CRT terminal only, but that's not a real solution that could work...not in today's technological world. That's essentially what you're proposing with the read only access. I can't even think of a job where "read only" access to a desktop is feasible. What industry were you thinking of when making this proposal exactly? Agree that disabling various sites is simple...we do it all the time. Issue is the individual and what they store on their PCs vs what's kept on a server. Of course, one could have a backup strategy that backs up everything on every PC every day and keep it forever. That's terribly unrealistic as well, but i did misspeak before. You COULD come up with a policy in theory. It wouldn't be practical or realistic for real world application though.

Curious, I can't conceive of an industry where most employees would need access to their local hard drives. I've done IT consulting for law firms, recruiting firms, banking firms, mortgage firms, construction firms, and others, both large and small, and most of them lock users out from storing data on the local desktops. The ones that do allow local access generally have very strict policies regarding what can be stored there. For example, attorneys and paralegals are often allowed to check documents out to their local drives for work while mobile, but those documents are automatically checked back in when the user reconnects. Ditto for e-mail; there might be an OST which caches a local copy of the user's mailbox, but once the user reconnects, that local copy syncs back to the server.

Is this what you meant by "read only"? If so, it's completely different than what it seemed like you meant initially. To me "read only" is just that....you can only read. You can't create docs (even if stored of a network drive etc) nada.

Yes, read only, meaning the user can't create any new files or edit any existing files on the local drive or install any software. They can run an installed program, such as Microsoft Word, and use it to create a document. When saving the document, it can only be saved to a server, but never to the local desktop.

 

[The Commish]

We do have a policy....as I stated before. It's kept for a period of time and then purged. If we as users want to keep it longer it's on us to take the necessary measures. You suggested that was "terrible" policy and I didn't (still don't) understand why. Doesn't matter though...we can move on.

Without going into it a whole lot more, the reason I think it's bad policy is because, generally, attorneys don't like to be surprised at trial or during discovery. Counsel wants to know going in what evidence there is, both for and against. In a way, allowing end-users to keep their own copies of e-mail, separate from the servers, is like allowing users to randomly take copies of company documents home with them. When the company later decides to shred the document, the attorney is going to be pissed when an unknown copy of the (presumed shredded) document shows up in an employee's car during discovery.

So your issue was with allowing the user to keep info on their computer outside the email retention policies. Got it. No policy in the world is going to fix this issue for an attorney. You can't write a policy that prevents this. It's impossible. The best you'd be able to do is use a document library package instead of allowing attachments in email. We have that in some areas. We use Oracle's Content Management suite in some areas of our organization. Even then, there is nothing preventing the user from storing a doc on their desktop in addition to (or in lieu of) loading it to that app unless, of course, what you gave them was only a terminal of sorts. That's highly problematic for most companies.

It's pretty simple to disable the use of PST files in Outlook. It's also pretty simple to give end-users read-only access to their local desktops. It's reasonably simple to disable web sites such as Dropbox, Gmail, etc. at the firewall level (although this costs some money in software or hardware, plus administrative expertise).

It's also very simple to write a formal policy stating that users aren't allowed to do X (e.g. take copies of documents home, or store e-mail on local drives), and will be reprimanded or fired if caught doing X (whether or not the technology exists to enforce it). At the very least, having such a formal, written policy can provide some legal protection for the company in certain instances.

I think we're on the same page here now, though.

Well, like I said before, you could give them a CRT terminal only, but that's not a real solution that could work...not in today's technological world. That's essentially what you're proposing with the read only access. I can't even think of a job where "read only" access to a desktop is feasible. What industry were you thinking of when making this proposal exactly? Agree that disabling various sites is simple...we do it all the time. Issue is the individual and what they store on their PCs vs what's kept on a server. Of course, one could have a backup strategy that backs up everything on every PC every day and keep it forever. That's terribly unrealistic as well, but i did misspeak before. You COULD come up with a policy in theory. It wouldn't be practical or realistic for real world application though.

Curious, I can't conceive of an industry where most employees would need access to their local hard drives. I've done IT consulting for law firms, recruiting firms, banking firms, mortgage firms, construction firms, and others, both large and small, and most of them lock users out from storing data on the local desktops. The ones that do allow local access generally have very strict policies regarding what can be stored there. For example, attorneys and paralegals are often allowed to check documents out to their local drives for work while mobile, but those documents are automatically checked back in when the user reconnects. Ditto for e-mail; there might be an OST which caches a local copy of the user's mailbox, but once the user reconnects, that local copy syncs back to the server.

Is this what you meant by "read only"? If so, it's completely different than what it seemed like you meant initially. To me "read only" is just that....you can only read. You can't create docs (even if stored of a network drive etc) nada.

Yes, read only, meaning the user can't create any new files or edit any existing files on the local drive or install any software. They can run an installed program, such as Microsoft Word, and use it to create a document. When saving the document, it can only be saved to a server, but never to the local desktop.

following you now...thanks

 

[Sand]

Curious, I can't conceive of an industry where most employees would need access to their local hard drives.

I can't conceive of one where I can't have access to my HD. Trying to drag and save the file sizes I work with over a network would be a nightmare of waiting.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-01/lois-lerner-colonel-mustard-and-the-blue-screen-of-death

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-01/lois-lerner-colonel-mustard-and-the-blue-screen-of-death

This is true, a blue screen hard drive's data can still be recovered.

 

[The Commish]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-01/lois-lerner-colonel-mustard-and-the-blue-screen-of-death

This is true, a blue screen hard drive's data can still be recovered.

In some cases...not in all cases.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Uhhhh....

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2014/07/federal_judge_orders_irs_to_explain_lost_lois_lerner_emails

Federal judge orders IRS to explain lost Lois Lerner emailsWASHINGTON — A federal judge today ordered the IRS to explain under oath how it lost a trove of emails to and from a central figure in the agency's tea party controversy.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan gave the tax agency a month to submit the explanation in writing. Sullivan said he is also appointing a federal magistrate to see whether the lost emails can be obtained from other sources.

Sullivan issued the order as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group. He said the IRS declaration must be signed, under oath, by the appropriate IRS official.

"I'm going to hold tight to that Aug. 10 declaration," Sullivan said.

....

 

[drummer]

I'd like to read those emails myself. I bet they are a hoot.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Uhhhh....

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2014/07/federal_judge_orders_irs_to_explain_lost_lois_lerner_emails

Federal judge orders IRS to explain lost Lois Lerner emailsWASHINGTON — A federal judge today ordered the IRS to explain under oath how it lost a trove of emails to and from a central figure in the agency's tea party controversy.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan gave the tax agency a month to submit the explanation in writing. Sullivan said he is also appointing a federal magistrate to see whether the lost emails can be obtained from other sources.

Sullivan issued the order as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group. He said the IRS declaration must be signed, under oath, by the appropriate IRS official.

"I'm going to hold tight to that Aug. 10 declaration," Sullivan said.

....

A month? Our legal system sucks sometimes. They should have a week.

 

[drummer]

Why can't they just go get the e-mails from other people in government it's known she communicated with? Still don't get this.

Maybe because those emails are just spam?

 

[Henry Ford]

Ted Cruz

wow

much Canadian

so extremist

very GOP

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'd like to read those emails myself. I bet they are a hoot.

Yep, a real hoot:

Lerner warned IRS workers about 'what we say in e-mails'

WASHINGTON — Former IRS official Lois Lerner cautioned her colleagues last year to be careful about what they put in e-mails because Congress might request them, according to newly disclosed e-mails.

Lerner, the official at the center of investigations into IRS targeting of political groups, also went so far as to ask an information technology staffer whether internal instant messages could be searched and retrieved in response to a congressional request. When the employee informed her that those messages were not automatically saved, Lerner responded with a one-word e-mail: "Perfect."

Lerner's caution about e-mail came in April 2013, two weeks after Treasury inspectors delivered a draft report finding that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to screen applications for tax exemptions by Tea Party groups. She has since resigned, and the Republican-led House of Representatives has held her in contempt for refusing to fully testify about the IRS handling of conservative groups.

...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/09/irs-lois-lerner-emails-be-careful-what-we-say/12424787/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why can't they just go get the e-mails from other people in government it's known she communicated with? Still don't get this.

Because it's a legal duty to provide documents from every custodians requested.

They do that in all instances because otherwise no one would ever know what was missing.

 

[drummer]

I'd like to read those emails myself. I bet they are a hoot.

Yep, a real hoot:

Lerner warned IRS workers about 'what we say in e-mails'

WASHINGTON — Former IRS official Lois Lerner cautioned her colleagues last year to be careful about what they put in e-mails because Congress might request them, according to newly disclosed e-mails.

Lerner, the official at the center of investigations into IRS targeting of political groups, also went so far as to ask an information technology staffer whether internal instant messages could be searched and retrieved in response to a congressional request. When the employee informed her that those messages were not automatically saved, Lerner responded with a one-word e-mail: "Perfect."

Lerner's caution about e-mail came in April 2013, two weeks after Treasury inspectors delivered a draft report finding that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to screen applications for tax exemptions by Tea Party groups. She has since resigned, and the Republican-led House of Representatives has held her in contempt for refusing to fully testify about the IRS handling of conservative groups.

...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/09/irs-lois-lerner-emails-be-careful-what-we-say/12424787/

Exactly, a real hoot.

 

[drummer]

Has anybody bothered to find out if these political groups still exist?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'd like to read those emails myself. I bet they are a hoot.

Yep, a real hoot:

Lerner warned IRS workers about 'what we say in e-mails'

WASHINGTON — Former IRS official Lois Lerner cautioned her colleagues last year to be careful about what they put in e-mails because Congress might request them, according to newly disclosed e-mails.

Lerner, the official at the center of investigations into IRS targeting of political groups, also went so far as to ask an information technology staffer whether internal instant messages could be searched and retrieved in response to a congressional request. When the employee informed her that those messages were not automatically saved, Lerner responded with a one-word e-mail: "Perfect."

Lerner's caution about e-mail came in April 2013, two weeks after Treasury inspectors delivered a draft report finding that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to screen applications for tax exemptions by Tea Party groups. She has since resigned, and the Republican-led House of Representatives has held her in contempt for refusing to fully testify about the IRS handling of conservative groups.

...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/09/irs-lois-lerner-emails-be-careful-what-we-say/12424787/

Exactly, a real hoot.

Somewhere there's an IT guy who is about to sign an affidavit before Congress. If he's smart he'll get his own lawyer.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Has anybody bothered to find out if these political groups still exist?

The IRS and White House are still there, yes.

 

[drummer]

Has anybody bothered to find out if these political groups still exist?

The IRS and White House are still there, yes.

I know you're too lazy, but anybody else have an answer?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Has anybody bothered to find out if these political groups still exist?

The IRS and White House are still there, yes.

I know you're too lazy, but anybody else have an answer?

Lord, Drummer, yes, they exist. How many groups were there, like over 100? A few of them are actively suing the IRS.

 

[ichris]

Perfect.

 

[rockaction]

Has anybody bothered to find out if these political groups still exist?

The IRS and White House are still there, yes.

I know you're too lazy, but anybody else have an answer?

Lord, Drummer, yes, they exist. How many groups were there, like over 100? A few of them are actively suing the IRS.

No, wait, let's all do this research so we can satisfy Drummer. Let's dig and come up with a list to satisfy his burden of proof, because that sounds fair.

Or, he can look it up himself instead of charging in and asking people to do his work for him.

 

[drummer]

Has anybody bothered to find out if these political groups still exist?

The IRS and White House are still there, yes.

I know you're too lazy, but anybody else have an answer?

Lord, Drummer, yes, they exist. How many groups were there, like over 100? A few of them are actively suing the IRS.

No, wait, let's all do this research so we can satisfy Drummer. Let's dig and come up with a list to satisfy his burden of proof, because that sounds fair.

Or, he can look it up himself instead of charging in and asking people to do his work for him.

Actually, I did put up a list earlier a few pages back, but that only proves that you are still too lazy with this.

 

[rockaction]

Has anybody bothered to find out if these political groups still exist?

The IRS and White House are still there, yes.

I know you're too lazy, but anybody else have an answer?

Lord, Drummer, yes, they exist. How many groups were there, like over 100? A few of them are actively suing the IRS.

No, wait, let's all do this research so we can satisfy Drummer. Let's dig and come up with a list to satisfy his burden of proof, because that sounds fair.

Or, he can look it up himself instead of charging in and asking people to do his work for him.

Actually, I did put up a list earlier a few pages back, but that only proves that you are still too lazy with this.

Nope. Not reading this thread all the way through, and not feeling one whit bad about it. Just waiting for it to unfold.

 

[drummer]

Hey rocknoaction, how much $$$ did you you contribute to "**** Cheney for a Better America"? Just askin'.

 

[jon_mx]

I hate that it is Judicial Watch behind this, but some people at the IRS abused the #### out of their position.

 

[drummer]

I bet he's never heard of that organization too, lol.

 

[jon_mx]

Hey rocknoaction, how much $$$ did you you contribute to "**** Cheney for a Better America"? Just askin'.

How much of Obama's #%%# did you $$$$&

 

[drummer]

Hey rocknoaction, how much $$$ did you you contribute to "**** Cheney for a Better America"? Just askin'.

How much of Obama's #%%# did you $$$$&

JON IS GETTIN' UPSET!

 

[drummer]

Funny thing is, tim probably knows best where my politics lie, since I have to point them out to him to correct his.

 

[jon_mx]

Hey rocknoaction, how much $$$ did you you contribute to "**** Cheney for a Better America"? Just askin'.

How much of Obama's #%%# did you $$$$&

JON IS GETTIN' UPSET!

Who is upset. I am just asking the obvious question. You are Obama's number 1 cheerleader

 

[rockaction]

Yeah, because off of the top of my head I know who Megan McArdle is, and linked to TaxProf.com, and blah blah blah, but I don't know who Judicial Watch is.

You are indeed the worst poster on this board. Shut the #### up, you antagonistic #####.

 

[drummer]

Hey rocknoaction, how much $$$ did you you contribute to "**** Cheney for a Better America"? Just askin'.

How much of Obama's #%%# did you $$$$&

JON IS GETTIN' UPSET!

Who is upset. I am just asking the obvious question. You are Obama's number 1 cheerleader

No, I didn't vote for him. I just laugh at how lazy you so called conservatives are that make them look as stupid as they appear.

 

[drummer]

Yeah, because off of the top of my head I know who Megan McArdle is, and linked to TaxProf.com, and blah blah blah, but I don't know who Judicial Watch is.

You are indeed the worst poster on this board. Shut the #### up, you antagonistic #####.

Just too lazy.

 

[rockaction]

Hey rocknoaction, how much $$$ did you you contribute to "**** Cheney for a Better America"? Just askin'.

How much of Obama's #%%# did you $$$$&

JON IS GETTIN' UPSET!

Who is upset. I am just asking the obvious question. You are Obama's number 1 cheerleader

No, I didn't vote for him. I just laugh at how lazy you so called conservatives are that make them look as stupid as they appear.

Seriously, if lazy is reading your posts, then call me lazy. Hint: Nobody wants to. You're an ###.

 

[drummer]

The fact that this thread is still an issue while there are more important ones that are really a matter of life and death:

Just.Proves.My.Point.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Has anybody bothered to find out if these political groups still exist?

The IRS and White House are still there, yes.

I know you're too lazy, but anybody else have an answer?

Lord, Drummer, yes, they exist. How many groups were there, like over 100? A few of them are actively suing the IRS.

No, wait, let's all do this research so we can satisfy Drummer. Let's dig and come up with a list to satisfy his burden of proof, because that sounds fair.

Or, he can look it up himself instead of charging in and asking people to do his work for him.

Drummer's burden of proof changes every time you meet his previous burden of proof request.

 

[drummer]

Hey rocknoaction, how much $$$ did you you contribute to "**** Cheney for a Better America"? Just askin'.

How much of Obama's #%%# did you $$$$&

JON IS GETTIN' UPSET!

Who is upset. I am just asking the obvious question. You are Obama's number 1 cheerleader

No, I didn't vote for him. I just laugh at how lazy you so called conservatives are that make them look as stupid as they appear.

Seriously, if lazy is reading your posts, then call me lazy. Hint: Nobody wants to. You're an ###.

Thanks man. I'm glad to get you riled up and passionate over something so trivial. It's very Fox News of me.

 

[rockaction]

The fact that this thread is still an issue while there are more important ones that are really a matter of life and death:

Just.Proves.My.Point.

No, it's just another declarative issued by some guy on the internet.

We'll see if an executive agency coordinated with anyone to specifically target people of a certain political persuasion. But we will have to wait.

 

[drummer]

Has anybody bothered to find out if these political groups still exist?

The IRS and White House are still there, yes.

I know you're too lazy, but anybody else have an answer?

Lord, Drummer, yes, they exist. How many groups were there, like over 100? A few of them are actively suing the IRS.

No, wait, let's all do this research so we can satisfy Drummer. Let's dig and come up with a list to satisfy his burden of proof, because that sounds fair.

Or, he can look it up himself instead of charging in and asking people to do his work for him.

Drummer's burden of proof changes every time you meet his previous burden of proof request.

Burden of proof for Max is that he has a brain.

We're still waiting.

 

[drummer]

The fact that this thread is still an issue while there are more important ones that are really a matter of life and death:

Just.Proves.My.Point.

No, it's just another declarative issued by some guy on the internet.

We'll see if an executive agency coordinated with anyone to specifically target people of a certain political persuasion. But we will have to wait.

Oh yeah, the internet. It's not a good thing for you as it appears.

 

[rockaction]

The fact that this thread is still an issue while there are more important ones that are really a matter of life and death:

Just.Proves.My.Point.

No, it's just another declarative issued by some guy on the internet.

We'll see if an executive agency coordinated with anyone to specifically target people of a certain political persuasion. But we will have to wait.

Oh yeah, the internet. It's not a good thing for you as it appears.

Huh?

You're a twit. Even people in the non-political threads can't stand you.

Good luck.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Has anybody bothered to find out if these political groups still exist?

The IRS and White House are still there, yes.

I know you're too lazy, but anybody else have an answer?

Lord, Drummer, yes, they exist. How many groups were there, like over 100? A few of them are actively suing the IRS.

No, wait, let's all do this research so we can satisfy Drummer. Let's dig and come up with a list to satisfy his burden of proof, because that sounds fair.

Or, he can look it up himself instead of charging in and asking people to do his work for him.

Drummer's burden of proof changes every time you meet his previous burden of proof request.

Burden of proof for Max is that he has a brain.

We're still waiting.

Nice comeback. I bet you'll be a big hit in the 8th grade next year.

 

[drummer]

The fact that this thread is still an issue while there are more important ones that are really a matter of life and death:

Just.Proves.My.Point.

No, it's just another declarative issued by some guy on the internet.

We'll see if an executive agency coordinated with anyone to specifically target people of a certain political persuasion. But we will have to wait.

Oh yeah, the internet. It's not a good thing for you as it appears.

Huh?

You're a twit. Even people in the non-political threads can't stand you.

Good luck.

LOL at efighting words.

Just PM me for my address. Otherwise, you look kinda stupid.

 

[drummer]

Has anybody bothered to find out if these political groups still exist?

The IRS and White House are still there, yes.

I know you're too lazy, but anybody else have an answer?

Lord, Drummer, yes, they exist. How many groups were there, like over 100? A few of them are actively suing the IRS.

No, wait, let's all do this research so we can satisfy Drummer. Let's dig and come up with a list to satisfy his burden of proof, because that sounds fair.

Or, he can look it up himself instead of charging in and asking people to do his work for him.

Drummer's burden of proof changes every time you meet his previous burden of proof request.

Burden of proof for Max is that he has a brain.

We're still waiting.

Nice comeback. I bet you'll be a big hit in the 8th grade next year.

Jeebus, we don't have to wait any longer.

 

[drummer]

CONSERVATIVES ARE GETTIN UPSET HERE!

 

[rockaction]

The fact that this thread is still an issue while there are more important ones that are really a matter of life and death:

Just.Proves.My.Point.

No, it's just another declarative issued by some guy on the internet.

We'll see if an executive agency coordinated with anyone to specifically target people of a certain political persuasion. But we will have to wait.

Oh yeah, the internet. It's not a good thing for you as it appears.

Huh?

You're a twit. Even people in the non-political threads can't stand you.

Good luck.

LOL at efighting words.

Just PM me for my address. Otherwise, you look kinda stupid.

LOL. I knew when you were charging through the threads today you were the one looking for an efight, because everything you've typed has been assholish and bellicose. No surprise here.

Just figured I'd call you on it.

Don't care about your political opinions one bit. Worked a long time in the field.

Wouldn't PM you if I needed a lifeline, you punk.

 

[drummer]

I think I'll post one dollar to "**** Cheney for a Better America" to see if it still works.

 

[drummer]

The fact that this thread is still an issue while there are more important ones that are really a matter of life and death:

Just.Proves.My.Point.

No, it's just another declarative issued by some guy on the internet.

We'll see if an executive agency coordinated with anyone to specifically target people of a certain political persuasion. But we will have to wait.

Oh yeah, the internet. It's not a good thing for you as it appears.

Huh?

You're a twit. Even people in the non-political threads can't stand you.

Good luck.

LOL at efighting words.

Just PM me for my address. Otherwise, you look kinda stupid.

LOL. I knew when you were charging through the threads today you were the one looking for an efight, because everything you've typed has been assholish and bellicose. No surprise here.

Just figured I'd call you on it.

Don't care about your political opinions one bit. Worked a long time in the field.

Wouldn't PM you if I needed a lifeline, you punk.

ROCKnoACTION IS VERY UPSET!