Cool. So your belief - absent facts - that others must have been just as bad as what we have definitive proof AND admission for, is all you have. In other words - empty faith. And when it comes to legal action, absence of proof IS proof of absence.
So - back at you. You keep claiming that progressive groups were targeted just as much, and had as much screening. What terms were used to identify them? What was the actual rate of progressive groups that were targeted, delayed? Why didn't the Inspector General and the IRS apologize for targeting them?
In August 2010, the Determinations Unit distributed the first formal BOLO listing. The criteria in the BOLO listing were Tea Party organizations applying for I.R.C. 501(c)(3) or I.R.C. 501(c)(4) status. Based on our review of other BOLO listing criteria, the use of organization names on the BOLO listing is not unique to potential political cases.16 EO function officials stated that Determinations Unit specialists interpreted the general criteria in the BOLO listing and developed expanded criteria for identifying potential political cases.17 Figure 3 shows that, by June 2011, the expanded criteria included additional names (Patriots and 9/12 Project) as well as policy positions espoused by organizations in their applications.
Furthermore, the criteria for expanded scrutiny:
Figure 3: Criteria for Potential Political Cases (June 2011)
“Tea Party,” “Patriots” or “9/12 Project” is referenced in the case file
Issues include government spending, government debt or taxes
Education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to “make America a better place to live”
Statement in the case file criticize how the country is being run
Certainly seems to skew HEAVILY towards tea party/conservative groups...
Now, given I've read the report and quoted DIRECTLY from it (I've linked the report for you), who's the idiot, and who's the one that swallowed the story from the progressive/liberal side of things that would love to see this go away? Who benefits from the IRS "losing" the e-mails? The same group that wants this to go away. Essentially, the liberal side of politics in the US.
The China of today likes to forget most of what happened between, say 1800 and 1993. At least, that's what my takeaway is from 6+ years of living in Shanghai...
They would probably hire them if they could solve the router problem. Most parrots I've met have a better voice than some overseas call centers I've had on the phone, but theire technical knowlege seems to be a little limited. The good news is they would work for crackers.
In this day and age, it is not acceptable to call us crackers. We are called caucasians.
Expectation bias coming in... There is a stereotype that Asians are better at science and math - and thus it is expected you'll "do fine" in those areas. As a caucasian who lived in Shanghai for 6 years, I saw that all the time with my fellow American/white coworkers, in how they would interview/recommend people. And I used the stereotype of "really smart at business because he is a white guy in China" more than once as well. Stereotypes are as useful as interpersonal skills when it comes to interviews.
Apparently you don't have a problem with the politicization of the IRS, to use the Government to attack political opponents. I get that. Most sane and reasonable people do have a problem with it - at least an ethical, if not recognizing that it's illegal and a gross misuse of Government power.
It wasn't unlawful, since no "illegal information" was required or used. If you think it was, cite the law that was broken. My wager is that you can't.
You should read what the IRS Inspector General said. It was overwhelmingly conservative/tea party groups that were affected, many delayed for so long they withdrew their application (closed down). It was quite secret (internal BOLO requests), it was unlawful (illegal information required before any action could be taken), and it was harmful (many groups folded because of the delay).
At least, that's what the Inspector General said. But I'm sure they are biased against their bosses and shouldn't be trusted...
I find it quite easy to use. Granted, I have a Samsung Note II - which has a nice 5.5" screen. But it's not hard to shop from it - especially Kindle books. Now if you had a smartphone with a sub-4" screen, I could understand the concern...
But as we see with the current issue, just how much pull/influence does Congress have with those bureaucrats? What is the repercussion for Lerner? Heck, what about Holder himself already found in contempt of Congress? The White House has all the power, Congress is now just a deliberative gathering of busybodies.
It's nice that you make good money on your patents, but so does Nathan Mhyrvold
Mr. Mhyrvold paid me a nice sum for one of my patents - and I do get to share in royalties from his licensing of it. Not only did he end up covering the cost of the patent filing and fees, he paid enough for me to put new hardwood floors and carpet throughout my house and paint the interior. Meaning he churned a lot of the economy - and continues to do so - by buying and licensing my patent.
I guess it would surprise you that President Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress passed, in 2005, the Energy Policy Act which provided things like rebates for tankless water heaters, increased biofuel use, subsidies for wind and solar, and a slew of other things. I guess by passing such an act, President Bush considered himself unAmerican.
Why shouldn't I take my Constitutional right to patent an invention?
- and that is the actual problem, isn't it?
Government making it a Constitutional entitlement to protect whatever it is you want protected.
See Article 1, section 8. Patents are a constitutional power of Congress. Established with the first writing of the Constitution. A better question is why SHOULDN'T my invention have a limited (17 or 20 years, depending upon when the patent was issued) time under which I can benefit by sharing my invention with others? In my case, it actually DID foster innovation in the industry, and competing technologies sprang up.
I don't think I ever disagreed there. The point is that the IRS makes the rules, Congress sets general guidelines by their laws. But as we've seen - departments are often quite willing to "color outside the lines" when it comes to making the actual rules you have to abide by.
I've never seen a car WITHOUT brake fluid - including electrics and hybrids. The motors simply do not have enough force in them - and all hybrids/electrics have normal braking systems. Hydraulics, brake pads/shoes, and discs/drums.
When I hit the gas, I want the car to go - not start going and then pause to think about what gear it should be in.
I've never had that problem, not even when driving a manual transmission. The only thing that ever bothers me about manual transmission is knowing there's somebody *immediately* behind me on an uphill slope when I bring the transmission into first gear from neutral.
One of the benefits of growing up in Seattle - learning to drive a stick on the hills!
It's not software. I have some patents related to loudspeaker motor designs, one related to a magnetically suspended flywheel without active compensation, and a few related to hearing aids. Physical, tangible things that I invented, built, proved - and licensed out. The money I've made from licensing has allowed me to pursue more esoteric kinds of engineering research, and take positions and start companies that most would never consider. That's been a direct benefit of my personal patents making me money.
So tell me why I shouldn't be able to have a patent on a new invention, one that has enough benefit that major CE players have licensed it (you can buy product from Microsoft, SONOS, Polk, Polycom, and a dozen other CE companies with my patented technology inside)? One that is definitely novel (the licensees certainly saw nothing pre-existing about it - and they're not known for just licensing tech just-because). Why shouldn't I take my Constitutional right to patent an invention? In less than 1 decade, it becomes public domain anyway...
Oh, and for the record - ALL patents are complete public knowledge. Before your patent is issued, it is published by the USPTO in its entirety. Description, claims, drawings - the whole thing. It's all public - even Microsoft's patents here are public. What is NOT public with Microsoft - or with my own patents - are the terms and conditions of the licenses, or which patents were actually licensed. THAT is private information - and no one should expect a right to see it. See my patents, fine - they are published by the USPTO. But want to know what I make from each licensee, or who has what kinds of rights to use each patent? Nope.
Heck no, I make good money on my patents! Enough that I work because I want to, not because I have to (and I'm just 46). Rather than abolish patents and copyrights, make them so they can only be held by an individual - not a corporation. That would do most of what you need. And yes, I have successfully defended my patent from infringers (never had to take it to court - hold up their product, hold up my patent and a product which uses my patent, ask them to explain the difference - and after 30 seconds of silence, just offer a nice licensing deal).
Read the original post - the IRS writes its own tax code, which is in direct opposition of what was said by the original poster to whom I respond. Congress gives some generalities, and the IRS creates all the details. How close those details match the original generalities and intent is often quite questionable...
In order to get the probe there in the career lifetimes of the investigators and minimize decay of the power source and instruments, this probe has the fastest velocity of any probe so far. It took only eight hours to pass the Moon's orbit. That gives it about a three day window to make measurements before heading off into the Kuiper belt (and 2nd plutoid if they can find one soon).
I don't fully understand that unit of velocity - can you frame it in Kessel runs per parsec?
>The IRS, in particular, expects taxpayers to keep records FOREVER (or until you die and your will is probated)
What? Where are you getting this nonsense? The IRS does not expect you to keep records for your *entire life*. That's absolute moronic drivel. In fact, the IRS doesn't require you to do *anything*; it's congress that writes the tax code. Not just a different entity, a completely different branch of government. The IRS isn't some extra-legal entity that makes up their own rules to inflict on citizens and delights in making them difficult.
There are approximately 2600 pages of tax law. That generated over 70,000 pages of tax regulations - which the IRS essentially wrote themselves and enforce. To a large extent, they did make up their own rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool. So your belief - absent facts - that others must have been just as bad as what we have definitive proof AND admission for, is all you have. In other words - empty faith. And when it comes to legal action, absence of proof IS proof of absence.
So - back at you. You keep claiming that progressive groups were targeted just as much, and had as much screening. What terms were used to identify them? What was the actual rate of progressive groups that were targeted, delayed? Why didn't the Inspector General and the IRS apologize for targeting them?
From the report (specifically page 6):
In August 2010, the Determinations Unit distributed the first formal BOLO listing. The criteria in the BOLO listing were Tea Party organizations applying for I.R.C. 501(c)(3) or I.R.C. 501(c)(4) status. Based on our review of other BOLO listing criteria, the use of organization names on the BOLO listing is not unique to potential political cases.16 EO function officials stated that Determinations Unit specialists interpreted the general criteria in the BOLO listing and developed expanded criteria for identifying potential political cases.17 Figure 3 shows that, by June 2011, the expanded criteria included additional names (Patriots and 9/12 Project) as well as policy positions espoused by organizations in their applications.
Furthermore, the criteria for expanded scrutiny:
Figure 3: Criteria for Potential Political Cases (June 2011)
“Tea Party,” “Patriots” or “9/12 Project” is referenced in the case file
Issues include government spending, government debt or taxes
Education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to “make America a better place to live”
Statement in the case file criticize how the country is being run
Certainly seems to skew HEAVILY towards tea party/conservative groups...
Now, given I've read the report and quoted DIRECTLY from it (I've linked the report for you), who's the idiot, and who's the one that swallowed the story from the progressive/liberal side of things that would love to see this go away? Who benefits from the IRS "losing" the e-mails? The same group that wants this to go away. Essentially, the liberal side of politics in the US.
The China of today likes to forget most of what happened between, say 1800 and 1993. At least, that's what my takeaway is from 6+ years of living in Shanghai...
They would probably hire them if they could solve the router problem. Most parrots I've met have a better voice than some overseas call centers I've had on the phone, but theire technical knowlege seems to be a little limited. The good news is they would work for crackers.
In this day and age, it is not acceptable to call us crackers. We are called caucasians.
Expectation bias coming in... There is a stereotype that Asians are better at science and math - and thus it is expected you'll "do fine" in those areas. As a caucasian who lived in Shanghai for 6 years, I saw that all the time with my fellow American/white coworkers, in how they would interview/recommend people. And I used the stereotype of "really smart at business because he is a white guy in China" more than once as well. Stereotypes are as useful as interpersonal skills when it comes to interviews.
Look - the Inspector General of the Treasury Department said it targeted groups for political reasons and that violates the equal protection under the law clause. Not to mention targeted audits of the same donors to those targeted groups. If it didn't do anything wrong, then why did the IRS apologize for its activities?
Apparently you don't have a problem with the politicization of the IRS, to use the Government to attack political opponents. I get that. Most sane and reasonable people do have a problem with it - at least an ethical, if not recognizing that it's illegal and a gross misuse of Government power.
It wasn't unlawful, since no "illegal information" was required or used. If you think it was, cite the law that was broken. My wager is that you can't.
Information leaked by the IRS - information that was illegal to do so. Donor lists are private and are NOT required for 501c(x) filings; yet the IRS demanded them, and in this case when they were provided, they were leaked. That's a felony.
According the IRS Inspector General, that actually wasn't the case. It was overwhelmingly conservative groups.
You should read what the IRS Inspector General said. It was overwhelmingly conservative/tea party groups that were affected, many delayed for so long they withdrew their application (closed down). It was quite secret (internal BOLO requests), it was unlawful (illegal information required before any action could be taken), and it was harmful (many groups folded because of the delay).
At least, that's what the Inspector General said. But I'm sure they are biased against their bosses and shouldn't be trusted...
I find it quite easy to use. Granted, I have a Samsung Note II - which has a nice 5.5" screen. But it's not hard to shop from it - especially Kindle books. Now if you had a smartphone with a sub-4" screen, I could understand the concern...
But as we see with the current issue, just how much pull/influence does Congress have with those bureaucrats? What is the repercussion for Lerner? Heck, what about Holder himself already found in contempt of Congress? The White House has all the power, Congress is now just a deliberative gathering of busybodies.
It's nice that you make good money on your patents, but so does Nathan Mhyrvold
Mr. Mhyrvold paid me a nice sum for one of my patents - and I do get to share in royalties from his licensing of it. Not only did he end up covering the cost of the patent filing and fees, he paid enough for me to put new hardwood floors and carpet throughout my house and paint the interior. Meaning he churned a lot of the economy - and continues to do so - by buying and licensing my patent.
I guess it would surprise you that President Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress passed, in 2005, the Energy Policy Act which provided things like rebates for tankless water heaters, increased biofuel use, subsidies for wind and solar, and a slew of other things. I guess by passing such an act, President Bush considered himself unAmerican.
Same user, second account.
Why shouldn't I take my Constitutional right to patent an invention?
- and that is the actual problem, isn't it?
Government making it a Constitutional entitlement to protect whatever it is you want protected.
See Article 1, section 8. Patents are a constitutional power of Congress. Established with the first writing of the Constitution. A better question is why SHOULDN'T my invention have a limited (17 or 20 years, depending upon when the patent was issued) time under which I can benefit by sharing my invention with others? In my case, it actually DID foster innovation in the industry, and competing technologies sprang up.
I don't think I ever disagreed there. The point is that the IRS makes the rules, Congress sets general guidelines by their laws. But as we've seen - departments are often quite willing to "color outside the lines" when it comes to making the actual rules you have to abide by.
vital fluids (like say, brake fluid)
I've never seen a car WITHOUT brake fluid - including electrics and hybrids. The motors simply do not have enough force in them - and all hybrids/electrics have normal braking systems. Hydraulics, brake pads/shoes, and discs/drums.
When I hit the gas, I want the car to go - not start going and then pause to think about what gear it should be in.
I've never had that problem, not even when driving a manual transmission. The only thing that ever bothers me about manual transmission is knowing there's somebody *immediately* behind me on an uphill slope when I bring the transmission into first gear from neutral.
One of the benefits of growing up in Seattle - learning to drive a stick on the hills!
It's not software. I have some patents related to loudspeaker motor designs, one related to a magnetically suspended flywheel without active compensation, and a few related to hearing aids. Physical, tangible things that I invented, built, proved - and licensed out. The money I've made from licensing has allowed me to pursue more esoteric kinds of engineering research, and take positions and start companies that most would never consider. That's been a direct benefit of my personal patents making me money.
So tell me why I shouldn't be able to have a patent on a new invention, one that has enough benefit that major CE players have licensed it (you can buy product from Microsoft, SONOS, Polk, Polycom, and a dozen other CE companies with my patented technology inside)? One that is definitely novel (the licensees certainly saw nothing pre-existing about it - and they're not known for just licensing tech just-because). Why shouldn't I take my Constitutional right to patent an invention? In less than 1 decade, it becomes public domain anyway...
Oh, and for the record - ALL patents are complete public knowledge. Before your patent is issued, it is published by the USPTO in its entirety. Description, claims, drawings - the whole thing. It's all public - even Microsoft's patents here are public. What is NOT public with Microsoft - or with my own patents - are the terms and conditions of the licenses, or which patents were actually licensed. THAT is private information - and no one should expect a right to see it. See my patents, fine - they are published by the USPTO. But want to know what I make from each licensee, or who has what kinds of rights to use each patent? Nope.
Heck no, I make good money on my patents! Enough that I work because I want to, not because I have to (and I'm just 46). Rather than abolish patents and copyrights, make them so they can only be held by an individual - not a corporation. That would do most of what you need. And yes, I have successfully defended my patent from infringers (never had to take it to court - hold up their product, hold up my patent and a product which uses my patent, ask them to explain the difference - and after 30 seconds of silence, just offer a nice licensing deal).
Read the original post - the IRS writes its own tax code, which is in direct opposition of what was said by the original poster to whom I respond. Congress gives some generalities, and the IRS creates all the details. How close those details match the original generalities and intent is often quite questionable...
In order to get the probe there in the career lifetimes of the investigators and minimize decay of the power source and instruments, this probe has the fastest velocity of any probe so far. It took only eight hours to pass the Moon's orbit. That gives it about a three day window to make measurements before heading off into the Kuiper belt (and 2nd plutoid if they can find one soon).
I don't fully understand that unit of velocity - can you frame it in Kessel runs per parsec?
Soviet Russia. Where the Doctors wait on you!
"Traditional filibuster"? There is only one type of filibuster in the Senate - and it was eliminated for judicial and executive branch nominees. Additionally 30% of the judicial seats weren't empty, there were 17 judicial nominees waiting and there are 874 appointed judges who must be confirmed by the Senate. That's about 1.9%, a far cry from the 30% you claim.
>The IRS, in particular, expects taxpayers to keep records FOREVER (or until you die and your will is probated) What? Where are you getting this nonsense? The IRS does not expect you to keep records for your *entire life*. That's absolute moronic drivel. In fact, the IRS doesn't require you to do *anything*; it's congress that writes the tax code. Not just a different entity, a completely different branch of government. The IRS isn't some extra-legal entity that makes up their own rules to inflict on citizens and delights in making them difficult.
There are approximately 2600 pages of tax law. That generated over 70,000 pages of tax regulations - which the IRS essentially wrote themselves and enforce. To a large extent, they did make up their own rules.