IRS Employees Were "Acutely" Aware Obama Wanted Tea Party Targeted, House Report Says

Back in 2010


take a hint

It may not have mattered whether the president himself actually called the IRS to tell them to target  Tea Party groups. IRS employees could, ahem, read the tea leaves.

From the Washington Times:

IRS employees were "acutely" aware in 2010 that President Obama wanted to crack down on conservative organizations and were egged into targeting tea party groups by press reports mocking the emerging movement, according to an interim report being circulated Tuesday by House investigators.

The report, by staffers for Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, quoted two Internal Revenue Service officials saying the tea party applications were singled out in the targeting program that has the agency under investigation because "they were likely to attract media attention."

The government's animosity toward the tea party, the White House built that.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at and tweet us at @reason247

NEXT: Starbucks Jumps in Middle of Gun Debate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Of course the House Republicans are going to use congressional resources to whine about a little White House oppression of their voters. How petty.

    1. Not getting tax favoritism is not oppression, and neither is investigating whether you deserve tax favoritism.

      1. and neither is investigating whether you deserve tax favoritism.

        How not if your group is singled out by nothing more than your political beliefs?

        1. There's no evidence that happened. Read the article. Issa is on a witch hunt for political ends, which is kind of ironic.

          1. Is there evidence that Obama is not an affirmative action beneficiary?

            Show me the records, Tony, show me.

            Of course, if one is an affirmative action beneficiary and one supports affirmative action, one is, by definition, RACIST.

            1. I don't follow.

            2. Let's assume Obama was an affirmative action beneficiary.

              How does that negate his Harvard Magna cum laude? Or his Senate record? Or presidency?

              1. -Or his Senate record?

                His Senate record? I seem to remember it essentially involved him running for another office.

                1. Barack Obama sponsored 137 bills from 4 Jan 2005 until 16 November 2008. Two became law.[1] This figure does not include bills to which Obama contributed as cosponsor, such as the Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 or the Lugar-Nunn Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006.


                  1. Two laws?

                    Surely he was a Gladstone or Disraeli of our august Senate!

                  2. That is a record about which to boast?

                    Cue Johnny Mac: You can't be serious!

                    How about the record number of "present" votes?

                    Harvard Magna cum laude? So, that is supposed to mean something? Even assuming it is legitimate, so the fuck what?

                    Release all of the records. Let us see everything. You promised the most transparent administration in history.

                    Why would that promise not extend to your background?

                    1. How about the record number of "present" votes?

                      As a state senator, you mean.

                      Who cares?

                    2. I honestly cannot understand all the focus and fascination on Obama's birth certificate or his time as a child in Indonesia or his college record. It is his record since 2008 that has me plenty concerned.

                    3. The fascination with his college transcripts comes from the fact that other Presidents and candidates routinely release theirs, while Obama's are locked down far tighter than (say) State department consulates in volatile Middle East countries.

                    4. Is it routine? I seem to recall that McCain did not release them, nor did W. Bush (they were leaked), for example.

                    5. And coincidentally, the Chicago Tribune just happened to leak the sealed divorce records of both of Obama's senate opponents.

              2. "How does that negate his Harvard Magna cum laude?"

                It doesn't negate it - it explains it.

                Affirmative action grade inflation.

            3. Got both of the rats out for this debate. Impressive!!!

          2. There's ample evidence tea party applications were held up for over two years. Progs have yet to produce any evidence of lefty groups undergoing this degree of scrutiny.

            1. Absolutely. And what lefty groups were asked for their reading lists, memberships lists, and the content of their prayers?

              Obama's skeezy half-brother got his dubious "charity" approved in record time, with a highly unusual waiver for years of illegal fundraising. The purely partisan Obama For America smoothly became the non-profit, "non-partisan" Organizing For America, while Tea Party groups are basically given cavity searches because, you know, they might endorse a candidate!

              The most shameless, deluded "deniers" these days aren't denying climate change, they're denying clear evidence that the IRS was acting for partisan purposes.

          3. This childlike faith you have in government is of a species you would ridicule were it vested in a deity.

            1. Well, that is why he is such a foaming-at-the-mouth religious bigot. Like the Islamists of the Taliban who spend much energy and funds to destroy the Bamiyan Buddahs despite the fact that Buddhism hadn't been practiced in Afghanistan for more than 1,000 years.

              la 'ilaha 'il l-Dawla, Barack Hussein Obamaun al-Thaanin rasulu l-Dawla

              There is no God but the State, and Barack Hussein Obama II is its Messenger!

              1. Careful, HM! Say that four more times and you are in the club....for life.

          4. But you love tax favoritism!

            1. Hell, in the world we're stuck with, I'd take some too.

          5. There's no evidence that happened.

            Gee, why do you sound just like David Irving?


      2. Good. So you support a flat tax then, right?

        1. Why would a flat tax be fair?

          A flat fee, perhaps.

          1. One man, one vote, one TAX. Yes, a Poll Tax.

      3. "Not getting tax favoritism is not oppression"

        Wait, Tony, so you're against gay marriage?

  2. Ayn Rand would be appalled by this incessant whining.

    1. Puh-leeease. If this was 2006, you and your ilk would want GWB's head on a platter.

      1. Bush would probably actually be doing what the Washington Times is grasping at straws to imply Obama is.

        1. It's not a big deal, and Bush would have been worse if he had ever been president!

        2. Tony, how about the 500 or so children, 16 and under, who have been murdered by Obama ordered drone strikes?

          Btw, almost all of the murdered young victims were brown skinned.

          1. Rent-boy doesn't care about brown people, obviously.


    2. Why did I know you would show up immediately on this thread thockpuppet?

    3. Ayn Rand would be appalled by this incessant whining.

      Seeing as how I'm not an objectivist, I'm uncertain as to why I should care what Ayn Rand would think.

      1. You haven't met the local strawman assassin have you?

  3. They don't call him Chocolate Nixon for nothin'.

  4. O/T: So the Crystal Clear Consent link on the PM links led me to this page on libertarians at Pharyngula. Aside from general amusement at the two-minute hate, I noticed that they referred to Jonathan Haidt's political psychology research in the second paragraph where they said that we feel less love for other people. I'm just amused that a "skeptic" community didn't notice how Haidt also found that libertarians tended to be the most logical out of all the groups tested.

    1. You need a Kirk and a Spock. Also, I don't know how they determined logical but you quite blatantly believe in a lot of things that are obviously false.

      1. Note the conspicuous lack of Tony contesting the point but merely shouting that emotional thinking is a good base for policy too.

        1. Banning AR-15s saves churrins. Logic. Boom.

      2. .... "blatantly believe in a lot of things that are false", is a ridiculous claim to make. So he believes in something that he knows is obviously false? Stupid claim to make Tony. You could at least argue that libertarians are naive, stupid, or narrow minded. You have to be careful about slapping those adverbs on there willy nilly, people might not take you seriously. You know the saying about adverbs right?

        1. Libertarians are ostentatious in their belief in stupid, untrue things.

          1. Nice, safer to use an adjective. I know a lot of non-libertarians who are ostentatious in their belief, so that's not unique. We're finally getting closer to something that can be argued though. Libertarians believe in stupid and untrue things huh? You know a lot of people would say the same thing about you and your friends. Isn't there a possibility that you're wrong?

    2. Haidt also found that those on the left were much worse at understanding how those on the right really think, compared to the other way around, which may account for some of the "They just want people to starve in the streets!" claims.

      1. No, those "wanting people to starve" claims are just projection. Leftards want to starve their opponents into obedience the way that Mao and Stalin did.


  5. "All I said was, 'will no one rid me of these insolent Tea-Partiers?' I gave no *specific* instructions to anyone who served in my administration to rid me of the Tea Partiers. This is a phony scandal."

  6. Cleveland Browns let down their fans, one more time....

    1. Well, at least Chad Hoyer is better than Stenny Hoyer.

      Most of Patriot nation would have told you that Chad Hoyer was the best back-up in the NFL while he was in Foxboro.

      1. Brian Hoyer?

    2. Trade early first round pick in 2012 (Richardson, 3rd overall, and a proven effective NFL running back) for mid-to-late first round pick in 2014 (and a crapshoot)?

  7. Politico chimes in with a little reductio ad absurdum: A national tea party group is asking for permission to keep their donors secret ? just like the socialists.

    Citing a long litany of harassment examples, the Tea Party Leadership Fund is asking the Federal Election Commission for the same right granted to the Socialist Workers Party to shield the names and information of their donors from the public.

    Continue Reading Text Size
    - + reset
    What to watch this week in politics
    Latest on POLITICO
    Senate GOP mum on House CR plan
    SNAP showdown set in House
    Booker huddles with Reid
    Zuckerberg 'optimistic' on immigration
    Clinton to do second McAuliffe event
    Among the Fed's worries? Congress
    In a new request to the FEC shared with POLITICO, the group argues that tea party donors and activists are being targeted for harassment by government officials and private groups ? and they cite derogatory comments by politicians and overbearing government investigations as evidence.

    Byron Tau's next insightful article will tackle the issue of how Socialists also breathe air, therefore if you don't want to be a hypocrite, you should stop breathing.

    1. Perhaps you should shower. If it's getting to the point where you can smell yourself, you've let it go too long.

      1. Doesn't too much soap retard the emission of pheromones?

        1. I don't think it retards them so much as simply washes them off. Perhaps that would cut into his dating life, but I'm not sure rats are that picky.

          1. Even shriek has a right to try and get some.

            1. Gwyneth Paltrow has to satisfy her urges somehow.

            2. Some guy's dick in his ass in Weigel's case, but yes, it's a free country.

              1. it's a free country.

                Well, at least it used to be.

      2. All that would accomplish is making his soap smell like ratfucker.

  8. I'm surprised at how unsurprised I am that the IRS has been politicized by the heir apparent to Richard M. Nixon. If he ever says, "I am not a crook", I might just faint.

  9. We are talking about organizations applying for tax exempt status by a neutral (ostensibly) federal agency. An LLC has tax exempt status with the IRS because it is a disregarded entity. So if the issue here is whether contributions to the entity are tax deductible by the donor, then we are talking about the IRS granting the entity 501(c)(3) status. That's my capsule understanding of the core tax status issue.

    So if the President, our President, uses his direct influence to weed out opposing political parties in the 501(c)(3) application process, but directs through a wink and a nod supportive political parties applications to sail through, then I cannot see how Tony can genuinely not be appalled by that. Obama was preparing to get re-elected at the time he and his administration engaged in this conduct. And he used his office to thwart not only due process, but the objective, fair-for-all citizens IRS application process in order to help his re-election efforts. That is beyond disgusting and tragic. It should be considered a high crime worthy of impeachment. If a Teathuglican had done this, Progtards would have collectively crapped their pants and thrown the feces at passers by to show their collectivist outrage.

    I cannot imagine a world view more childish and foolish than that of a progressive or socialist. At least the fascists and communists never pretended to be anything other than extreme.

    1. then I cannot see how Tony can genuinely not be appalled by that.

      It's easy. Tony doesn't think, he emotes, and it FEELS good to ignore his own team's corruption.

      1. A lot of liberals aren't ignoring it. Instead they embrace it since conservatives and Tea Party groups don't like taxes and therefore they must be conspiring to cheat on their taxes.

        1. True. A lot of masks are slipping over this one.

          1. I just argue that they are essentially making the 'if she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have worn that short skirt' argument applied to people wanting to exercise their First Amendment rights.

            1. That ever work? Unfortunately, being a TEAMtard means you get really good at embracing cognitive dissonance.

              1. This is why I think Liberals are the most hateful/racist/cruel political affiliation. They really don't care about facts, moral foundations, ethical truths or fairness. What they really are is a group that envies those who are financially better off than them, and because they are too lazy or dumb to improve their own lot, they denigrate those who do. Because we all know the Left love them some expensive Subarus, iMacs, and loft apartments.

              2. It gets them angry, so in a sense it works. I have no illusions about changing any of their minds.

                1. Do not despair: The day will come when Tony sees the light.

                  1. I'll despair; Tony is one of the smarter ones. Think about that.

                  2. You mean that light people claim to see right before they die?

    2. In the report, the investigators do not find evidence that IRS employees received orders from politicians to target the tea party, and agency officials deny overt bias or political motives.

      But the report says the IRS was at least taking cues from political leaders and designed special policies to review tea party applications, including dispatching some of them to Washington to be vetted by headquarters.

      According to the (ahem) Washington Times, Obama used mind jedi to impart this "direct influence" you mention.

      1. Either that or the hordes of propagandists journalists employed by the statist media.

    3. I cannot see how Tony can genuinely not be appalled by that

      Because you assume that it argues in good faith.

    4. This is largely true, except that many of the groups were seeking 501(c)(4) status.

  10. Slate takes issue with the Buzzfeed article on 9 shootings stopped by armed civilians

    First of all, five of the nine "potential mass shootings" that the article mentions were thwarted not by brave private citizens but by off-duty or former police officers, two of whom were working as security personnel at the venues where the incidents took place. A sixth was stopped by an Army reserve officer. A seventh was allegedly stopped by a certified security guard who used to work at the mall where the incident took place. (I say "allegedly" because there's no evidence to corroborate the guard's claim that he compelled the shooter to retreat.) These people may have been using their personally owned firearms, yes, but they also knew how to use them in dangerous situations. It's absurd to pretend that these well-trained authority figures can be compared to untrained civilians with concealed carry permits and guns they bought at WalMart. The former have been taught how to respond to crisis situations. The latter, generally, have not.

    Well that settles it, only cops with their renowned mental stability and superior judgment, should have guns.

    1. well-trained authority figures

      well-trained authority figures
      authority figures

        1. It's a point that bared repeating.

      1. Also. Walmart!

    2. The Left are true believers in the magic of certification.

    3. "certified security guard"
      *takes breath*

      1. Here's how you get "certified" to be an armed guard in CA. From the website:
        "To apply for a firearm permit, you must:

        Be a U.S. citizen or have permanent legal alien status.
        Pass a course in the carrying and use of firearms. The approximately 14-hour (8 hours classroom, approximately 6 hours range) training course covers moral and legal aspects, firearms nomenclature, weapon handling and shooting fundamentals, emergency procedures, and range training. The course must be given by a Bureau-certified firearms training instructor at a Bureau-certified training facility. Written and range exams are administered at the end of the course."

        1. I guess that to liberals, 14 hour course = Highly Trained

          1. As I've mentioned on this site before, the only two people I've ever known to accidentally discharge their weapons (both shooting themselves in the hands, coincidentally) were cops. I used to shoot multiple days a week for years and got to be pretty good that way. I duck hunted with a Marine once who didn't even know how to operate a shotgun.

            It's absurd to pretend that these well-trained authority figures can be compared to untrained civilians with concealed carry permits and guns they bought at WalMart.

            Only a gun-hating little pussy would say something that retarded.

    4. well-trained authority figures

      All you need to read.

    5. guns they bought at WalMart

      Code for "rednecks".

      1. Would that be a dog whistle?

    6. It's absurd to pretend that these well-trained authority figures can be compared to untrained civilians with concealed carry permits and guns they bought at WalMart. The former have been taught how to respond to crisis situations. The latter, generally, have not

      It's well-documented how well some of the Warrior Caste respond to "crisis situations." Most recently was the Florida A&M grad who was in a car accident and had the unmitigated gall to try and seek help from the police.

      P.S. That right-wing Faux News rag, the New York Times, reported that the sainted NYPD, on average, only hits their targets 34 percent of the time. So all these "untrained civilians" have to do is beat 34 percent.

    7. Now, Rt. Hon., don't you know that the untrained civilians might forget to shoot a few dogs?

    1. Why the fuck did I click on that?!

      1. Because you don't check the little bar at the bottom of your browser that tells you what you're linking to.

        Rookie mistake.

      2. Dude...scroll to the bottom of the first page.

        1. I feel like this is a trap.

          1. It was.

          2. And yet, it had more intellectual substance than anything Tony has ever posted.

        2. I like Sarah. A lot.

      3. A quart? At 7 calories per teaspoon, that is quite a hearty meal...

    2. I read that link as "HorsesMenShots", so it could have been worse.

      1. Uh-huh. Sure you did.

    3. The taste wasn't that bad, he said. "I thought it would be creamy and curdled. The grossest part was it hitting me in the face."

    4. Not sure if this is the best website ever, or the worst.

      1. Yes. The answer is yes.

  11. Progressives think that using the federal government to target the opponents of progressive objectives is one of the things the federal government is for.

    1. The very definition of "tolerance" is intolerance for those who oppose you.

      1. What's the point of having a progressive president in the White House if he's not using the executive branch to further progressive goals?

        The executive branch is law enforcement, right?

        The progressives sure as hell aren't going to stand up for anybody's rights. Go ask a progressive like that idiot Tony--if the elected elite don't like our rights, the progressive don't even think people's rights exist.

        Find me a progressive who thinks what Obama did was wrong, here, and I'll find you a phony progressive. They're all about using the federal government to force people to do what's in the best interests (as they see them) of the country as a whole.

        Even if Obama had ordered this personally, progressives would think Obama was just doin' his job.

        1. If Obama did in fact direct the IRS to target conservative groups for unfavorable tax treatment it is a very serious offense.

          But there is no evidence of such.

          1. It's a serious offense whether Obama knew anything about it or not.

          2. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence of it. If the boss publicly attacks certain groups, hires people with a record of attacking those groups, has many meetings with these employees, and then those employees attack those groups, it's not a huge leap to think he was probably giving orders.

            1. Those hundreds of visits by Steve Miller to the White House (unprecedented for an IRS head) were all just social calls!

        2. There is so much that is problematic about general denunciations of 'progressives.' This strikes me as so because the word has been used by so many different groups over such a long period of time. Are you talking about today's progressives who embrace restrictions on 'hate speech' and 'corporate speech,' or are you talking about yesterday's progressives like Brandies who nearly single handedly gave teeth to the First Amendment? Are you talking about progressives like Al Sharpton who call for the rights of the accused to be trashed, or progressives like the ACLU which have done more for the rights of the accused than any other group I can think of? And this cuts both ways. Are you talking of yesterday's progressives who embraced forced sterilization of 'feeble minded' women, or today's progressive which fights restrictions on women's reproductive rights?

          I think the term is becoming as useful as 'neoconservative' or 'anarchist' in today's political conversation.

          1. You mean the Brandeis who supported sterilization?

            1. That was covered in my post, no?

              1. I didn't read it that way, but if that's what you mean then your entire post is just refuting your point.

                And again, "reproductive rights" aren't rights. If no one wants to breed with you then too bad. You have no right t reproduce, only to pursue it.

                1. I meant it was covered in my post in that you can find 'progressives' all over the place in terms of rights. Brandies may have supported forced sterilization, but championed free speech, just as many a 'progressive' present day feminist would oppose forced sterilization but would be willing to restrict speech.

                  As to your second point, I think you are intelligent enough to know what they are talking about: the right to contract with others in reproductive matters (buy and sell contraceptive, abortion services, etc).

                  1. An abortion occurs after reproduction has already occurred. Saying otherwise is a gross manipulation of the language. Buying and selling contraceptives is part of free association and has nothing to do with a right to reproduction.

                    1. Your questionable comment about abortion aside, your claim regarding contraceptives is like saying that allowing the buying or sale of firearms has nothing to do with a right to keep and carry.

                    2. Calling the ability to get an abortion, or condoms for that matter, "reproduction rights" is fucking stupid. Contraceptive rights would at least be more accurate.

                  2. Again, it only proves that progressives don't believe in rights as they are correctly defined.

        3. Progressives don't believe "rights" exist, at least, not individual rights or natural rights. You have a series of privileges that you receive from the government because it is benevolent and wise enough to give them to you. You deserve nothing because without government, you'd be living in a cave.

          Or something.

          1. -Progressives don't believe "rights" exist, at least, not individual rights or natural rights.

            This is what I am talking about. Liberals do not believe in "rights?" I have to wonder who those people are with screaming about reproductive rights, voting rights, etcetera, etcetera.

            Many liberals have many serious faults, but it is silly to say that they don't believe in any rights.

            1. Well, some of the progs that troll these threads have claimed there's no such thing as "natural rights." Rather, they believe that our rights come from our government.

            2. Those aren't rights so bad example. Positive rights aren't rights.

            3. Which is why I added the qualifier "individual rights or natural rights." The term "right," when used by Progressive, merely means "privilege granted by the state."

              1. -Which is why I added the qualifier "individual rights or natural rights."

                -Those aren't rights so bad example. Positive rights aren't rights.

                It seems more accurate to say you disagree with them about what are rights and their nature than that they do not seem to believe in any rights.

                1. No, it's not more accurate. They don't believe in rights because what their claims about what rights are is wrong.

                  1. -No, it's not more accurate. They don't believe in rights because what their claims about what rights are is wrong.

                    This is akin to saying that Muslims are atheists because their claims about God are wrong.

                    1. Only if you are retarded. It merely believe that Muslims are wrong about the existence and/or nature of god/gods.

                    2. -It merely believe that Muslims are wrong about the existence and/or nature of god/gods.

                      Which, of course, is still not atheism.

                2. It seems more accurate to say you disagree with them about what are rights and their nature than that they do not seem to believe in any rights.

                  It would be even more accurate to say that it is not an honest disagreement on terms; it is merely Progressives arguing in bad faith.

            4. Progressives, then and now, have much in common. A disdain for the limits on government in the Constitution, which they feel is outdated. A desire to make society more "modern." Some degree of attraction toward socialism, which is often unspoken or hidden. A general "reformer" mindset: Somewhere, someone is hurting, thus Something Must Be Done. (And that something is preferably a centralized, government solution.)

              1. Let's not forget the administrative state, brought to you courtesy of the progressives.

              2. Progressives then and now believe that government action can (and should be used to) improve society and individual subjects. Which necessarily includes a belief in the efficacy and benevolence of government action. Specifically government action directed by benevolent experts that act only in the public's interest, eschewing personal ambition and gain.

                The roots of the ideology are the social gospel and scientific management movements of the late 19th - early 20th century. They are godless puritans, christians that have replaced jesus with the people and the holy spirit with education.

                Liberalism is an entirely different beast. Liberalism love the 1st amendment, for example, but progressives love speech codes and other restrictions.

                1. -Progressives then and now believe that government action can (and should be used to) improve society and individual subjects.

                  Too broad, as social conservatives believe this as well.

                  1. Too broad, as social conservatives believe this as well.

                    Who said they were any different? Their beliefs on the function of government are the same as progressives, they just quibble over the implementation details.

                    Put another way, today's socons are yesterday's progressives; they just haven't gotten around to admitting that they replaced God with government yet.

            5. Liberals do not believe in "rights?" I have to wonder who those people are with screaming about reproductive rights, voting rights, etcetera, etcetera.

              No. No, they don't. Just because they do not understand the term "rights" and misuse it, does not mean they believe in rights.

              And both of the examples you give illustrate this perfectly. Neither of those are rights.

            6. I would have figured by now you would understand that most people here don't acknowledge positive rights as actual rights, as opposed to negative rights.

          2. Does it come complete with a babelicious Barbarella?

          3. Does it come complete with a babelicious Barbarella?

      2. Progressivism requires centralization of all agency in the government. Once everyone is a young child before governmental parents, this is the natural outcome.

        1. It has already been pointed out that authority was the keynote of the German system. This authority, embodied in school and church, began to mold the plastic mind of the German child as early as the age of six. "The Emperor is the father of his country and loves his children like a father; we owe him the obedience due to a father," taught the school. "Submit yourselves unto authority," said the church, using Paul's words to serve the ends of the state. The child came from school and church to his military service and found authority enthroned there. He had to obey the orders of every Vorgesetzter (superior in authority) from field marshal down to corporal. He found that, in the absence of officers or non-commissioned officers, he must submit himself to the authority of the Stuben?ltester, the senior soldier in the same room with him. Insubordination was punished rigorously.

          This time, it will work. All we have to do is apply more jackboot to the people's faces.

          1. Traditional German toilet training was very early and very rigorous, which may explain a lot.

    1. Doesn't sound anything like the Mario themesong, but those are some pretty sexy plumbers...

      1. That's because it was a medley from games like Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Kart.

        1. Ah. It's been a while since I played Mario Kart, and I've never played the other, so I didn't recognize it.

        2. It's three pieces of music: the Rainbow Road theme from Mario Kart 64,'Dire, Dire Docks' theme from Super Mario 64, and the general Mario end title theme.

    2. Nice, I'd like to go through their warp pipe, if ya know what I mean.

  12. -two Internal Revenue Service officials saying the tea party applications were singled out in the targeting program that has the agency under investigation because "they were likely to attract media attention."

    What is that supposed to mean?

    1. Have you ever considered that you might find the answer in Hadley v. Baxendale?

      1. Miles Massey: Why only 50, Freddy? Why not a hundred? While we're dreaming, why not 150? Are you familiar with "Kershner"?

        Freddy Bender: "Kershner" does not apply.

        Miles Massey: Bring this to trial, we'll see if "Kershner" applies.

        Rex: What's "Kershner"?

        Miles Massey: Please, let me handle this.

        Freddy Bender: "Kershner" was in Kentucky.

        Miles Massey: "Kershner" was in Kentucky?

        Freddy Bender: "Kershner" was in Kentucky.

        Miles Massey: All right, Freddy, forget "Kershner". What's your bottom line?

        Freddy Bender: Primary residence, 30 percent of remaining assets.

        Miles Massey: What, are you nuts? Have you forgotten "Kershner"?

        1. Don't ever forget Kershner.

          I suspect that, after this year's post-season, people will not forget Kershaw.

        2. A reference to a shitty George Clooney movie (are there any other kind?), fucking seriously?

          Choke yourself.

    2. What is that supposed to mean?

      "The tall nail gets the hammer."

      1. I still do not gather what that statement means in terms of the administration's motives or actions.

        1. I think Papaya is saying two things. One is about liberal/progressive policy where we can't have people perform better than others. Hence the whole tax the rich more. Cause you know people, other than government leaders, shouldn't be allowed to have more money than other people, cause private entrepeneurship is bad, and small business can't succeed. Income redistribution and other vile programs like it are used to punish those the left no likey. The other meaning is that because of Obama and his left administration, the Tea Partiers got the real motivation to organize and fight oppressive and overreaching govenment. Since the tea partiers were rising up all around the nation, the idea was to quell down their ability to organize effectively, nip them in the butt. If they can't organize legally, then how do they gain momentum to initiate change in our country.
          So to summarize, Progs no like small business or rich people and government punish those who no agree with gubment.

          1. But this seems not to address what was actually said, that the Tea Party groups should be targeted because they were 'likely to attract media attention' (especially considering much of that 'media attention' was negative).

            1. I don't think the left, irregardless of how Tea Partiers were spun, wanted them getting attention. Considering the tea party is the almost exact opposite of progressive political issues, there may be people, middle ground voters who would be interested in Tea Party movements, because they are attacking and questioning what government says. I think since a lot people get their info from the news, the less organized tea Partiers could be the less attention they could generate, hence the less they could expose government. Just giving my two cents. Perhaps papaya didn't mean anything at all, and just wanted to be clever. Smart Fruit anyone?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.