OBAMA'S ASS-KICKING CONTINUES......Jobless claims at 42 YEAR LOW!!!.. AMAZING!!!

[andreisdaman]

I love me some iwantass...

FIXED

[Necrosis]

As I stated before, comprehension is a problem for you.  The last excerpt was the liberal's opinion.  They didn't state it was fact.  They just provided her response.  That it is why it's in quotation marks.  You know these little things "".  They in no way agreed with her assertion.

There are no quotations

Again with your literacy problem.  I never claimed Obama was a muslim but you failed to grasp that the first time.  I also never claimed Obama was responsibile for targetting, only that you have to be a special kinda stupid to deny it doesn't exist.....which you are.

 


Don't do this to yourself again.  Maybe you are just having problems reading through the tear stains because I made your socially retarded ass look like a full-on retard in front of the only forum you feel safe to talk because your disability doesn't allow you to debate in public/person.

Not sure what this means, the only groups denied were progressive, explain this to me genius, you stated that the IRS targetted right wing groups specifically, then gave evidence, meanwhile....

Go smoke your Marijuana and try to develop real social skills and you won't take me making you look stupid so seriously.  You only got your ass kicked on the net, not in real life

LOL, calm down tuff boi, you are a boon to this board with your constant off topic remarks, derailing and personal attacks, Im sorry I forgot who you were, don't take it so personal, you just don't stand out, your ordinary.

So you claim the IRS targeted right wing groups, yet left wing groups were also scrutinized and the end result was a correct overview in which only progressive groups were denied, aka no tea party groups.

Just going to try being an adult with you for a second, tea party is a very specific thing, a political group or a chlids game, thus it's easy to scrutinize, it's clearly political. The IRS is looking for money scams, hidden money, tea party groups make sense, progressive as well but less so since it could be many things, not necessarily a political group.

Try to stick to the thread, did the IRS do as you stated?

[iwantmass]

So you claim the IRS targeted right wing groups, yet left wing groups were also scrutinized and the end result was a correct overview in which only progressive groups were denied, aka no tea party groups.

Just going to try being an adult with you for a second, tea party is a very specific thing, a political group or a chlids game, thus it's easy to scrutinize, it's clearly political. The IRS is looking for money scams, hidden money, tea party groups make sense, progressive as well but less so since it could be many things, not necessarily a political group.

Try to stick to the thread, did the IRS do as you stated?

You need to actually do research and stop repeating the words of a democratic strategist. That is what you are using as evidence, the word of a democratic strategist.   The doj and fbi both agree that conservative groups were targeted, they just claim there is no evidence of intent, rather they claim it is mismanagement.  Conservative groups were targeted, this isn't up for the debate unless you are a completely biased idiot.....wait that's you. 

At no point were liberal groups denied/delayed near to the amount of conservative groups, rather they were declined at a normal rate.  That is what you are trying to cite as evidence, a normal rate of decline that both liberal and conservative groups both see.  Then again, we both know you did zero research because you are referencing a democratic strategist's word as evidence eventhough your very own fact finding cite disagrees with her.

You must be a strong believer In coincidence for Lois lerner's tone towards conservatives in her email, her magically lost email, multiple crashed servers and hard drives, and specifically scrutinized conservative terms to all mean nothing.

You are literally one of the few remaining people left to deny targetting to occur. The link you posted has been refuted and proven false multiple times if you bother to do an ounce of resesrch.

Every government agency all the way up to obama himself have admitted that conservative groups were placed under unfair scrutiny.  They just like to refer to it as misguided management.

There, did I stick to the thread well enough for you?   I'm not going treat you like an adult because you don't act like one.  You lie, omit facts, and cherry pick evidence to your liking. That isn't the behavior of an adult.

[Necrosis]

You need to actually do research and stop repeating the words of a democratic strategist. That is what you are using as evidence, the word of a democratic strategist.   The doj and fbi both agree that conservative groups were targeted, they just claim there is no evidence of intent, rather they claim it is mismanagement.  Conservative groups were targeted, this isn't up for the debate unless you are a completely biased idiot.....wait that's you. 

No they were not, many groups were targeted, namely political ones, left and right.

At no point were liberal groups denied/delayed near to the amount of conservative groups, rather they were declined at a normal rate.  That is what you are trying to cite as evidence, a normal rate of decline that both liberal and conservative groups both see.  Then again, we both know you did zero research because you are referencing a democratic strategist's word as evidence eventhough your very own fact finding cite disagrees with her.

Are you aware of the temporal nature of existence? the first was rebutted by the second due to the second being months later, #commonsense

You must be a strong believer In coincidence for Lois lerner's tone towards conservatives in her email, her magically lost email, multiple crashed servers and hard drives, and specifically scrutinized conservative terms to all mean nothing.

More circumstantial bullshit, left wing terms were used also, are you completely biased and unable to accept this fact. The GOP ASKED to leave out the other references, to make it appear they were the only one\s targeted, what facts do you have?

You are literally one of the few remaining people left to deny targetting to occur. The link you posted has been refuted and proven false multiple times if you bother to do an ounce of resesrch.

Sure it has, so many links you can't provide even one?

Every government agency all the way up to obama himself have admitted that conservative groups were placed under unfair scrutiny.  They just like to refer to it as misguided management.

Admitted that the IRS specifically targeted right wing groups only? bullshit.

There, did I stick to the thread well enough for you?   I'm not going treat you like an adult because you don't act like one.  You lie, omit facts, and cherry pick evidence to your liking. That isn't the behavior of an adult.

No, you are literally patently wrong.

You literally posted nothing, no quotes, no links, nothing to even support your position, you are a loser who obama owns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

"Initial reports described the selections as nearly exclusively of conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names. According to Republican lawmakers, liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, but not at nearly the same rate as conservative groups.[8] The Republican majority on the House Oversight Committee issued a report which concluded that although some liberal groups were selected for additional review, the scrutiny that these groups received did not amount to targeting when compared to the greater scrutiny received by conservative groups; however, the report was criticized by the committee's Democratic minority which argued that the report ignored evidence that the IRS used keywords to identify both liberal and conservative groups.[9][10]

In January 2014, the FBI told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the scandal, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued.[11] On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges will be filed.[12][13]

Ya let's trust the same morons that purposely doctored emails to only include tea party groups, how insane is that, are you a toddler?

So on to your lois lerner bullshit, theDOJ looked at the same evidence you did and concluded

|DOJ investigation
In October 2015, the Justice Department notified Congress that there would be no charges against the former IRS official Lois Lerner or against anyone else in the IRS. The investigation found no evidence of illegal activity or the partisan targeting of political groups and found that no IRS official attempted to obstruct justice. The DOJ investigation did find evidence of mismanagement and Lerner's poor judgement in using her IRS account for personal messages but said "...poor management is not a crime."[167][168][169]"

THE ONLY ORG stripped of tax exempt status was left leaning, this destroys your whole 9/11 truther non sense.

Tea party groups should have been scrutinized, you are wrong as usual.

[iwantmass]

You literally posted nothing, no quotes, no links, nothing to even support your position, you are a loser who obama owns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

"Initial reports described the selections as nearly exclusively of conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names. According to Republican lawmakers, liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, but not at nearly the same rate as conservative groups.[8] The Republican majority on the House Oversight Committee issued a report which concluded that although some liberal groups were selected for additional review, the scrutiny that these groups received did not amount to targeting when compared to the greater scrutiny received by conservative groups; however, the report was criticized by the committee's Democratic minority which argued that the report ignored evidence that the IRS used keywords to identify both liberal and conservative groups.[9][10]

In January 2014, the FBI told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the scandal, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued.[11] On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges will be filed.[12][13]

Ya let's trust the same morons that purposely doctored emails to only include tea party groups, how insane is that, are you a toddler?

So on to your lois lerner bullshit, theDOJ looked at the same evidence you did and concluded

|DOJ investigation
In October 2015, the Justice Department notified Congress that there would be no charges against the former IRS official Lois Lerner or against anyone else in the IRS. The investigation found no evidence of illegal activity or the partisan targeting of political groups and found that no IRS official attempted to obstruct justice. The DOJ investigation did find evidence of mismanagement and Lerner's poor judgement in using her IRS account for personal messages but said "...poor management is not a crime."[167][168][169]"

THE ONLY ORG stripped of tax exempt status was left leaning, this destroys your whole 9/11 truther non sense.

Tea party groups should have been scrutinized, you are wrong as usual.

Look at your own words, dumbshit.  The justice department didn't deny targeting, they only said it was mismanagment and not intentional.  They know they were targeted, they just couldn't prove it.

Wow, the democratic minority didn't want to admit to targeting republicans.  Is that what you call evidence and why you underlined it? I criticize you and call you an anti-social retard that has to debate on the net because he is afraid of human confrontation unless he smokes his marijuana.  I guess it's true by your standard.  

No enemy hunting doesn't imply no targeting.  They just credited the targetingto poorly managed business practices.

I'm not gonna provide links for you as you readily skipped over all of it on your Wikipedia page there.  

No, the tea party shouldn't have been scrutinized to the degree they were and the link you cited readily agrees with that, you just failed to post those.  

Stop saying the only organizations stripped of tax exempt status was left leaning, and while you are at it stop ignoring the fact that a huge amount of the conservative groups were delayed for unusual long periods of time.  Someone like you tries to not count 18 month delays as denied to support your numbers.  That only works in your simple brain.



This is the exact reason you threw a temper tantrum last time.  You post the same stuff over and over, you cherry pick the parts you like and you just fail to comprehend it.  I don't want you to go into a rage again and have another meltdown, but given that you are posting a democratic strategist and the democratic minority's opinion as your major evidence all while ignoring the other 95% of both your links, it looks like a necrosis meltdown is inevitable.

Didn't I already educate you on the value of opinion as evidence anyhow?

[Necrosis]

Look at your own words, dumbshit.  The justice department didn't deny targeting, they only said it was mismanagment and not intentional.  They know they were targeted, they just couldn't prove it.

Wow, the democratic minority didn't want to admit to targeting republicans.  Is that what you call evidence and why you underlined it? I criticize you and call you an anti-social retard that has to debate on the net because he is afraid of human confrontation unless he smokes his marijuana.  I guess it's true by your standard.  

No enemy hunting doesn't imply no targeting.  They just credited the targetingto poorly managed business practices.

I'm not gonna provide links for you as you readily skipped over all of it on your Wikipedia page there.  

No, the tea party shouldn't have been scrutinized to the degree they were and the link you cited readily agrees with that, you just failed to post those.  

Stop saying the only organizations stripped of tax exempt status was left leaning, and while you are at it stop ignoring the fact that a huge amount of the conservative groups were delayed for unusual long periods of time.  Someone like you tries to not count 18 month delays as denied to support your numbers.  That only works in your simple brain.



This is the exact reason you threw a temper tantrum last time.  You post the same stuff over and over, you cherry pick the parts you like and you just fail to comprehend it.  I don't want you to go into a rage again and have another meltdown, but given that you are posting a democratic strategist and the democratic minority's opinion as your major evidence all while ignoring the other 95% of both your links, it looks like a necrosis meltdown is inevitable.

Didn't I already educate you on the value of opinion as evidence anyhow?

Look, if you are this stupid, I am sorry, I can no longer respond. Clearly they were targeted, they were not targeted unjustly  and were not specifically targeted, liberal groups were also.

Not one thing has come from it yet you still believe in it? lol.

[iwantmass]

Look, if you are this stupid, I am sorry, I can no longer respond. Clearly they were targeted, they were not targeted unjustly  and were not specifically targeted, liberal groups were also.

Not one thing has come from it yet you still believe in it? lol.

No, liberal groups were not targeted in the same fashion .  Just because you keep repeating that doesn't make it so, and you can't provide any facts to support that because they don't exist.  I understand repeating yourself over and over may work for your pet iguana, but those of us with actual social skills don't consider that relevant debate. We require proof.

Well, I guess that solves it.  If they weren't convicted of a crime in a court, they must be innocent.  That is pretty poor logic even by your simple standards.  our legal system isn't exactly flawless.  It was erroneous targeting, not just targeting; even obama has admitted that.  No one other than yourself is saying they were fairly targeted.  They just can't establish deliberation behind the unfair targeting.  

You haven't provided one iota of evidence supporting your case, except the political rhetoric of a democratic strategist or.the democratic minority.  In both the srticle and Wikipedia page you produced, the unfair targeting is the major subject matter yet you completely ignore it due to your comprehension issues.  I don't even have to provide evidence when  I can read what you provided and it works just fine.

This is exactly what you did last time.  You provide zero evidence and supplement it instead with retarded logic such as :

If they weren't convicted of a crime, then they were innocent.

Sorry, that isn't the way it works.  The political and wealthy have a history of getting off in this country.  If you need an example, go read the g&o thread about the affluenza case.  

The first link you provided makes mention of the fact that plenty of conservative groups were stalled through the process for 18 months and in a few extremes 3 years.  You are trying not to count those case, because it doesn't support your narrative.  Your Wikipedia page covers this as well, you just chose to read the 1 line that says the democratic minority disagrees with it.

For such a fan of the scientific method as you presented yourself in the previous thread, you continue to have a low bar for establishing facts/evidence when the word of a democratic strategist is good enough for you in a case potentially involving democratic wrong doing.  Not to mention lois lerner's written disdain for conservatives, and this all happened on her watch. Oh, and the planted question for her that made all this come to light 2 days before she was due to be called out on it.

I'll stick to my first suggestion at the beginning of this page, you have to be a special kinda stupid to.claim unfair targeting didn't take place.  I do agree you should leave the thread, as you don't know how to argue or present yourself with others.  I thought it only afflicted you in real.life, but apparently it affects you here too.  

[Necrosis]

No, liberal groups were not targeted in the same fashion .  Just because you keep repeating that doesn't make it so, and you can't provide any facts to support that because they don't exist.  I understand repeating yourself over and over may work for your pet iguana, but those of us with actual social skills don't consider that relevant debate. We require proof.

Well, I guess that solves it.  If they weren't convicted of a crime in a court, they must be innocent.  That is pretty poor logic even by your simple standards.  our legal system isn't exactly flawless.  It was erroneous targeting, not just targeting; even obama has admitted that.  No one other than yourself is saying they were fairly targeted.  They just can't establish deliberation behind the unfair targeting.  

You haven't provided one iota of evidence supporting your case, except the political rhetoric of a democratic strategist or.the democratic minority.  In both the srticle and Wikipedia page you produced, the unfair targeting is the major subject matter yet you completely ignore it due to your comprehension issues.  I don't even have to provide evidence when  I can read what you provided and it works just fine.

Thus is exaxtly what you did last time.  You provide zero evidence and supplement it instead with retarded logic such as :

If they weren't convicted of a crime, then they were innocent.

Sorry, that isn't the way it works.  The political and wealthy have a history of getting off in this country.  If you need an example, go read the g&o thread about the affluenza case.  

The first link you provided makes mention of the fact that plenty of conservative groups were stalled through the process for 18 months and in a few extremes 3 years.  You are trying not to count those case, because it doesn't support your narrative.  Your Wikipedia page covers this as well, you just chose to read the 1 line that says the democratic minority disagrees with it.

For such a.fan of the scientific method as you presented yourself in the previous thread, you continue to have a low bar for establishing facts/evidence when the word of a democratic strategist is good enough for you in a case potentially involving democratic wrong doing.  Not to mention lois lerner's written disdain for conservatives, and this all happened on her watch. Oh, and the planted question for her that made all this come to light 2 days before she was due to be called out on it.

I'll stick to my first suggestion at the beginning of this page, you have to be a special kinda stupid to.claim unfair targeting didn't take place.  I do agree you should leave the thread, as you don't know how to argue or present yourself with others.  I thought it only afflicted you in real.life, but apparently it affects you here too.  

DOJ,FEDS and common sense disagree with you. I did not read this, you are not worth my time. All you have are thoughts of lois lerner not liking the GOP and nothing happened to lerner despite investigation.

You are literally arguing against every official report, the only groups denied were progressive, only group stripped progressive.

Why would I keep arguing with you? you have nothing and are saying that all the investigations are wrong.

Keep following me around and telling yourself that you owned me lol, I forgot who you were for fuck sakes, I have a real life you full time loser.

[iwantmass]

DOJ,FEDS and common sense disagree with you. I did not read this, you are not worth my time. All you have are thoughts of lois lerner not liking the GOP and nothing happened to lerner despite investigation.

You are literally arguing against every official report, the only groups denied were progressive, only group stripped progressive.

Why would I keep arguing with you? you have nothing and are saying that all the investigations are wrong.

Keep following me around and telling yourself that you owned me lol, I forgot who you were for fuck sakes, I have a real life you full time loser.

Wrong again. They said there was no evidence that deliberation was involved in the unfair targeting.  Both the doj and feds agreed they were unfairly targeted, they just could not ascertain the motive to be criminal.  That's what I keep telling you about your comprehension issue.

I don't ever comment on owning people on the internet.  I will leave that to people lIke you that have a "social" disability that doesn't allow them to own people in real life

Don't be such a drama queen again... no one is following you.  Outside of the thread that you attacked me in, and your meltdown thread dedicated to me, this is the only time I've ever responded to you.  I often only respond to posters like you that make outlandish lies.  If you remain honest, you will likely never see me respond to you.

[Necrosis]

Wrong again. They said there was no evidence that deliberation was involved in the unfair targeting.  Both the doj and feds agreed they were unfairly targeted, they just could not ascertain the motive to be criminal.  That's what I keep telling you about your comprehension issue.

I don't ever comment on owning people on the internet.  I will leave that to people lIke you that have a "social" disability that doesn't allow them to own people in real life

Don't be such a drama queen again... no one is following you.  Outside of the thread that you attacked me in, and your meltdown thread dedicated to me, this is the only time I've ever responded to you.  I often only respond to posters like you that make outlandish lies.  If you remain honest, you will likely never see me respond to you.

what are you going on about? social disability? lol who are you? clearly a gimmick, the fact that you are following me around and got upset when I forgot who you were is hilarious.

I wouldn't own people in real life, only a person with a social disability would say something like that, I help people for a living, not own them. Maybe when I was a teenager I thought like that, but when you grow up and become a professional (it will happen, keep going!) your views might change.

you are immune to facts, I literally posted conclusions from all investigations that disagree with you, those are the facts,your conclusions or inferences are not, those are opinion, you seem to think Lois lerner was hiding things? don't think either investigation found that, how can you completely disagree with the investigations?

Just like you think Obama going to church 10 times a year versus 30 means he is a muslim, it's non-sequitor , you are nuts.

[iwantmass]

what are you going on about? social disability? lol who are you? clearly a gimmick, the fact that you are following me around and got upset when I forgot who you were is hilarious.

I wouldn't own people in real life, only a person with a social disability would say something like that, I help people for a living, not own them. Maybe when I was a teenager I thought like that, but when you grow up and become a professional (it will happen, keep going!) your views might change.

you are immune to facts, I literally posted conclusions from all investigations that disagree with you, those are the facts,your conclusions or inferences are not, those are opinion, you seem to think Lois lerner was hiding things? don't think either investigation found that, how can you completely disagree with the investigations?

Just like you think Obama going to church 10 times a year versus 30 means he is a muslim, it's non-sequitor , you are nuts.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Just keep taking your meds.  You should be careful what you discuss on these boards as someone will remember it. 

The investigations found no conclusion of criminality, not the nonesixstence of unfair targeting.  Stop trying to tie the 2 together, as they aren't 1 in the same.  You keep ignoring that point.

I'm not immune to facts, you just seem to think opinions are facts.

These are examples of facts:

Lerner voiced her disdain for conservatives via email as she also voiced the need to be careful of the content of email as there was a likelyhood of review

Hard drives and servers were destroyed

An audience plant was in place to question lerner before she was to testify before a committee

Doj, obama, feds all agree unfair targeting took place. Their words, not mine

These are not facts:

A democratic strategist suggestion that liberal groups were targeted at the same rate

Elijah Cummings suggesting there is nothing here to see.

You aren't a professional, so don't act like 1.  You are a person that lies on the internet and barely comprehends the articles you try to cite as.evidence

[Necrosis]

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Just keep taking your meds.  You should be careful what you discuss on these boards as someone will remember it. 

The investigations found no conclusion of criminality, not the nonesixstence of unfair targeting.  Stop trying to tie the 2 together, as they aren't 1 in the same.  You keep ignoring that point.

I'm not immune to facts, you just seem to think opinions are facts.

These are examples of facts:

Lerner voiced her disdain for conservatives via email as she also voiced the need to be careful of the content of email as there was a likelyhood of review

Hard drives and servers were destroyed

An audience plant was in place to question lerner before she was to testify before a committee

Doj, obama, feds all agree unfair targeting took place. Their words, not mine

These are not facts:

A democratic strategist suggestion that liberal groups were targeted at the same rate

Elijah Cummings suggesting there is nothing here to see.

You aren't a professional, so don't act like 1.  You are a person that lies on the internet and barely comprehends the articles you try to cite as.evidence

meltdown, that was all over the place, try to collect your thoughts and stick to one point at a time, you are rambling.

targeting took place, but it was just fine, left leaning groups were as well, the report the right concocted, leaves out anything but tea party, that makes sense!!!

what was unfair about it? that the name tea party is clearly political while progressive could be a car company, in fact they often have the best rates, have you switched to progressive?

[andreisdaman]

meltdown, that was all over the place, try to collect your thoughts and stick to one point at a time, you are rambling.

targeting took place, but it was just fine, left leaning groups were as well, the report the right concocted, leaves out anything but tea party, that makes sense!!!

what was unfair about it? that the name tea party is clearly political while progressive could be a car company, in fact they often have the best rates, have you switched to progressive?

 
Awesome

[iwantmass]

meltdown, that was all over the place, try to collect your thoughts and stick to one point at a time, you are rambling.

targeting took place, but it was just fine, left leaning groups were as well, the report the right concocted, leaves out anything but tea party, that makes sense!!!

what was unfair about it? that the name tea party is clearly political while progressive could be a car company, in fact they often have the best rates, have you switched to progressive?

Sorry buddy, the meltdown is your business.  You have your own meltdown thread, remember?

At this point I question if you have even researched this or just glanced at liberal talking points. Many other groups other than those with the name.tea party were targeted as well as extensively questioned.

As badly as you are coming off here by repeating liberal groups were targeted at near the same rate, I would like to give you credit for trolling but that isn't the case.

Try and go debate this point in person today and see if you can do it without stuttering and becoming flustered without your meds and marijuana

[iwantmass]

Awesome

Except that he is wrong, and you know it as well.  You just want to side with someone because I consistently make you look like an idiot.  Your only argument is that I haven't 2k post or that you destroyed me.

Don't side with this guy. He has a full meltdown thread that you have already read. As well, I'm being truthful about him being a social retard which is why he isn't acknowledging it. He is medicated for his inferiority as he has admitted in the past
 That is why he is so passionate about this board,Because it is his safe space.

[Necrosis]

Except that he is wrong, and you know it as well.  You just want to side with someone because I consistently make you look like an idiot.  Your only argument is that I haven't 2k post or that you destroyed me.

Don't side with this guy. He has a full meltdown thread that you have already read. As well, I'm being truthful about him being a social retard which is why he isn't acknowledging it. He is medicated for his inferiority as he has admitted in the past
 That is why he is so passionate about this board,Because it is his safe space.

lol,lol.

Wait didn't you join recently

Think about it, you are calling me a social retard who needs to medicate himself (don't drink coffee, it's medicinez!!1) yet you are melting down with constant random personal insults and are using a gimmick, lol.

do you need some money or help or something? I have extra if you need some

[absfabs]

didn't obama decide not to count those not actively looking? cuuting down the #

[andreisdaman]

didn't obama decide not to count those not actively looking? cuuting down the #

NOPE Obama DID NOT DECIDE THIS.....this is the way the UE rate has always been counted since the dawn of time.......but the fact that you thought that Obama said that is  very telling about your knowledge of how the government works and your bias against Obama

[andreisdaman]

Except that he is wrong, and you know it as well.  You just want to side with someone because I consistently make you look like an idiot.  Your only argument is that I haven't 2k post or that you destroyed me.

Don't side with this guy. He has a full meltdown thread that you have already read. As well, I'm being truthful about him being a social retard which is why he isn't acknowledging it. He is medicated for his inferiority as he has admitted in the past
 That is why he is so passionate about this board,Because it is his safe space.

Okay....again you are coming after me because you need my attention...I didn't want to weigh in on your debate with Necrosis because of my ban on engaging with you due to your prior irrationality.......howe ver, you've succeeded in getting my attention......I wasn't siding with Necrosis, only responding to his joke on you about progressive car insurance....but I read the article he posted with Donna Brazile's comments and in my opinion his findings concerning the facts of the article are accurate....

The Inspector General for Tax basically AGREED with Ms. Brazile.....he admitted that yes in fact other groups were targeted as well.....progressive groups and other groups......and that this was left out of the congressional report.....I will admit that all that stuff with Ms. Lerner and her lost emails and crashed servers is very disconcerting......and looks suspicious on the surface...but STILL the Inspector General said there was no evidence to suggest that only Tea Party and conservative groups were investigated....although he did also suggest that the intensity of the investigations may have been greater for the conservative groups.....but the original premise that conservative groups were singled out appears unsubstantiated at this time based on the testimony of the Inspector General who I assume is beyond reproach in this situation.  So in my opinion, Necrosis' argument has merit.....not "taking his side" as you say.....its what the facts of the article force us to conclude.....

Also keep in mind that the Republicans have had an annoying habit of calling for congressional hearings on matters which later turn out to have no merit or conclude with no findings....and all of these accusations seem to attempt to link these supposed scandals to Obama..REMEMBER:

Republicans accused Obama of covering up Benghazi................ .........NOT TRUE
Republicans accused Obama of targeting conservative groups through the IRS..........NOT TRUE
Republicans accused Obama of a coverup and knowing about the VA scandal..........NOT TRUE

also don't forget the Republican rantings that Obama was jeopardizing the security of the United states by not handling the crisis correctly and  not cancelling flights to the US from Africa during the EBOLA scare and that thousands would die as a result...meanwhile ONE person died and that's because by the time he got the U.S. for treatment he was already half dead........

and remember the Republicans said that Obama was a Muslim and not a citizen..the republicans get you guys pumped up and then leave you hanging later when its found that their accusations are baseless

so now that that's over, you really need to stop ranting and you need to admit when you are wrong....newcomers to getbig like yourself sometimes make the mistake of wanting to jump into the fray when they are not ready.......which is why I suggested you go to the sex board for awhile and build up your post count there...and as I pointed out you would have the added benefit of being able to masturbate as well......

So I'm asking you once again to PLEASE ADHERE TO MY 2000 post rule and to not engage with me until you have reached 2000 posts....hopefully by then you will have gained some maturity and learned to be humble when proven wrong (which happens a lot)   

[iwantmass]

Okay....again you are coming after me because you need my attention...I didn't want to weigh in on your debate with Necrosis because of my ban on engaging with you due to your prior irrationality.......howe ver, you've succeeded in getting my attention......I wasn't siding with Necrosis, only responding to his joke on you about progressive car insurance....but I read the article he posted with Donna Brazile's comments and in my opinion his findings concerning the facts of the article are accurate....

The Inspector General for Tax basically AGREED with Ms. Brazile.....he admitted that yes in fact other groups were targeted as well.....progressive groups and other groups......and that this was left out of the congressional report.....I will admit that all that stuff with Ms. Lerner and her lost emails and crashed servers is very disconcerting......and looks suspicious on the surface...but STILL the Inspector General said there was no evidence to suggest that only Tea Party and conservative groups were investigated....although he did also suggest that the intensity of the investigations may have been greater for the conservative groups.....but the original premise that conservative groups were singled out appears unsubstantiated at this time based on the testimony of the Inspector General who I assume is beyond reproach in this situation.  So in my opinion, Necrosis' argument has merit.....not "taking his side" as you say.....its what the facts of the article force us to conclude.....

Also keep in mind that the Republicans have had an annoying habit of calling for congressional hearings on matters which later turn out to have no merit or conclude with no findings....and all of these accusations seem to attempt to link these supposed scandals to Obama..REMEMBER:

Republicans accused Obama of covering up Benghazi................ .........NOT TRUE
Republicans accused Obama of targeting conservative groups through the IRS..........NOT TRUE
Republicans accused Obama of a coverup and knowing about the VA scandal..........NOT TRUE

also don't forget the Republican rantings that Obama was jeopardizing the security of the United states by not handling the crisis correctly and  not cancelling flights to the US from Africa during the EBOLA scare and that thousands would die as a result...meanwhile ONE person died and that's because by the time he got the U.S. for treatment he was already half dead........

and remember the Republicans said that Obama was a Muslim and not a citizen..the republicans get you guys pumped up and then leave you hanging later when its found that their accusations are baseless

so now that that's over, you really need to stop ranting and you need to admit when you are wrong....newcomers to getbig like yourself sometimes make the mistake of wanting to jump into the fray when they are not ready.......which is why I suggested you go to the sex board for awhile and build up your post count there...and as I pointed out you would have the added benefit of being able to masturbate as well......

So I'm asking you once again to PLEASE ADHERE TO MY 2000 post rule and to not engage with me until you have reached 2000 posts....hopefully by then you will have gained some maturity and learned to be humble when proven wrong (which happens a lot)  

Just because you choose to post your longwinded tangent thoughts  that have almost zero to do with the issue at hand, I'll still take the time to read it and respond accordingly.  I didn't accuse obama of any of those things.   In fact, in my first post on this thread, I stated obama wasn't at fault but unfair targeting did take place.....so, that makes me still right.

The length of your answer doesn't make it anymore right.  AND let's get one thing straight, you choose not to engage me because I make you look like a biased jackass.  It has nothing to do with my post count

[iwantmass]

lol,lol.

Wait didn't you join recently

Think about it, you are calling me a social retard who needs to medicate himself (don't drink coffee, it's medicinez!!1) yet you are melting down with constant random personal insults and are using a gimmick, lol.

do you need some money or help or something? I have extra if you need some

My post history isn't relevant to you being a social retard.  A meltdown is what you had when you started a thread dedicated to me

[Dos Equis]

My post history isn't relevant to you being a social retard.  A meltdown is what you had when you started a thread dedicated to me

I think it was dedicated to me. 

No, wait, I forgot we are the same person.    

Has Necrosis quit like he promised to do? 

[whork]

Necrosis and iwantmass going at it again.



Looking at your posts and rhetoric you guys are actually somewhat similar, allthough you have conflicting opinions.

[Necrosis]

My post history isn't relevant to you being a social retard.  A meltdown is what you had when you started a thread dedicated to me

LOL.

yes I forgot about your existence and you keep addressing me in any thread I post, sounds like someone who won a debate. Just like here, you are getting your ass handed to you.

The first sentence of your post is nonsensical, how you got there I will never know.

[iwantmass]

I think it was dedicated to me. 

No, wait, I forgot we are the same person.    

Has Necrosis quit like he promised to do? 

He cites a democratic strategist as evidence.. he even used Wikipedia as a reference.  Even under that premise, neither of those sided with his argument.  I didn't even have to provide evidence.  In his mind if someone isn't convicted in court, they are innocent.  I wonder if he would have the same opinion if the offender were a Republican