(03-28-2014 11:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:21 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
They're going to get their evidence (ALL the IRS e-mails). They just have to wait for it. Sorry that will take more time than those who want to make this political actually want. Feel free to call the IRS obstructionists if you feel it necessary, but you can't really prove otherwise. Sorry.

No hissyfit, just stating the obvious. It's inappropriate to describe ANY investigation as closed until the evidence is presented. And if the IRS is not obstructing, then what are they doing?

Gathering the information.

The request is for ALL e-mails of more than just a few people. Just doesn't happen with a wave of a wand. Especially from a bloated government agency.

This is correct, it won't happen with the wave of a wand. I would imagine it could take an IT staff of say, 10 people, an entire afternoon to collect the e-mails from several dozen people.

See? We can agree on some things!

Well, we can certainly agree that you don't have any sort of background in IT.

So, then, how long? What would be your estimate for collecting Ms. Lerners e-mails from this time period?

(03-28-2014 11:32 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Let's see here.................... We have a 5-4 decision on Citizens United where the GOP holds a 6-3 appointment advantage and we are surprised that the majority of 504c's are from Republican sources in nature???????? This is some great mystery?????? Holy freaking cripes are you guys obtuse.

Perhaps that's because GOP appointments tend not to be the hacks that we get from the dems.

But the point is that is was *exclusively* right leaning 504cs that were targeted.

By the way I bet you still won't say in one sentence what caused the Citizens United case?

(03-28-2014 11:38 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:21 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No hissyfit, just stating the obvious. It's inappropriate to describe ANY investigation as closed until the evidence is presented. And if the IRS is not obstructing, then what are they doing?

Gathering the information.

The request is for ALL e-mails of more than just a few people. Just doesn't happen with a wave of a wand. Especially from a bloated government agency.

This is correct, it won't happen with the wave of a wand. I would imagine it could take an IT staff of say, 10 people, an entire afternoon to collect the e-mails from several dozen people.

See? We can agree on some things!

Well, we can certainly agree that you don't have any sort of background in IT.

So, then, how long? What would be your estimate for collecting Ms. Lerners e-mails from this time period?

I don't know...and it's not just for her. They want several others as well. The guy at the IRS told them how long it would take. He knows what systems they have in place for archival and such. He has no reason to lie for Lerner. She's gone.

(03-28-2014 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:38 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:21 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Gathering the information.
The request is for ALL e-mails of more than just a few people. Just doesn't happen with a wave of a wand. Especially from a bloated government agency.

This is correct, it won't happen with the wave of a wand. I would imagine it could take an IT staff of say, 10 people, an entire afternoon to collect the e-mails from several dozen people.
See? We can agree on some things!

Well, we can certainly agree that you don't have any sort of background in IT.

So, then, how long? What would be your estimate for collecting Ms. Lerners e-mails from this time period?

I don't know...and it's not just for her. They want several others as well. The guy at the IRS told them how long it would take. He knows what systems they have in place for archival and such. He has no reason to lie for Lerner. She's gone.

He's not lying for Lerner. He's lying for Obama.

(03-28-2014 11:42 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:32 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Let's see here.................... We have a 5-4 decision on Citizens United where the GOP holds a 6-3 appointment advantage and we are surprised that the majority of 504c's are from Republican sources in nature???????? This is some great mystery?????? Holy freaking cripes are you guys obtuse.

Perhaps that's because GOP appointments tend not to be the hacks that we get from the dems.

But the point is that is was *exclusively* right leaning 504cs that were targeted.

By the way I bet you still won't say in one sentence what caused the Citizens United case?

No, it wasn't. Exclusive would mean only GOP. There were liberal groups targeted as well. Not as intensely, but they were targeted too.

(03-28-2014 11:32 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Let's see here.................... We have a 5-4 decision on Citizens United where the GOP holds a 6-3 appointment advantage and we are surprised that the majority of 504c's are from Republican sources in nature???????? This is some great mystery?????? Holy freaking cripes are you guys obtuse.

um, no. clinton nominated bader-ginsberg-looks-like-she's-being-electrocuted and the imminently forgettable breyer. obama nominated the wise latina and the jewish lesbian. that's 4, right there.

(03-28-2014 11:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:38 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:21 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  This is correct, it won't happen with the wave of a wand. I would imagine it could take an IT staff of say, 10 people, an entire afternoon to collect the e-mails from several dozen people.
See? We can agree on some things!

Well, we can certainly agree that you don't have any sort of background in IT.

So, then, how long? What would be your estimate for collecting Ms. Lerners e-mails from this time period?

I don't know...and it's not just for her. They want several others as well. The guy at the IRS told them how long it would take. He knows what systems they have in place for archival and such. He has no reason to lie for Lerner. She's gone.

He's not lying for Lerner. He's lying for Obama.

Your opinion, devoid of fact, is duly noted.

(03-28-2014 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not as intensely,

Pretty much says it all.

(03-28-2014 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:42 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:32 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Let's see here.................... We have a 5-4 decision on Citizens United where the GOP holds a 6-3 appointment advantage and we are surprised that the majority of 504c's are from Republican sources in nature???????? This is some great mystery?????? Holy freaking cripes are you guys obtuse.

Perhaps that's because GOP appointments tend not to be the hacks that we get from the dems.

But the point is that is was *exclusively* right leaning 504cs that were targeted.

By the way I bet you still won't say in one sentence what caused the Citizens United case?

No, it wasn't. Exclusive would mean only GOP. There were liberal groups targeted as well. Not as intensely, but they were targeted too.

This is why you are the clown. 2 liberals and 500 cons. All that is acceptable? Tool.

(03-28-2014 11:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:38 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well, we can certainly agree that you don't have any sort of background in IT.

So, then, how long? What would be your estimate for collecting Ms. Lerners e-mails from this time period?

I don't know...and it's not just for her. They want several others as well. The guy at the IRS told them how long it would take. He knows what systems they have in place for archival and such. He has no reason to lie for Lerner. She's gone.

He's not lying for Lerner. He's lying for Obama.

Your opinion, devoid of fact, is duly noted.

What would it take for you to question or criticize anything that came out of this regime? I mean, how far would they have to go before you'd start to question their intent or motives? What would it take to get you to stop carrying water for Obama?

Facts.

And YOU of all people Owl has to know how the IRS operates. It shouldn't surprise you one bit that this is how they took to going after those groups.

And I've said it before...I don't have time on here to lodge many criticisms toward Obama even though I have on numerous occasions. It's a never ending job debunking the lies and distortions coming at a never before seen level toward this President, our President.

Some of my criticisms:
- Tax increase delay
- Patriot Act resigning
- Not closing GITMO
- Settling on Health Care
- Not getting out of Afghanistan soon enough
- Not revising the drone policy to my liking
- NSA stances
- And myriad others...

And I could ask the same thing of you, what would it take for you to look at anything he's done and not immediately think he ****** it up or had some nefarious reason as to why he did it?

Yes I know how the IRS operates. And as you wrote yourself, their efforts to go after leftist groups were not as intense (less like the IRS?) as against rightist groups.

As for "never before seen level," seriously? How many movies have been made about killing Obama? I don't think he's been subject to anything approaching GWB or LBJ, among others. As for whether they're "lies" or not, that depends largely on viewpoint. They're lies to you because your truth is left-wing truth. They're not lies to those who view facts from a right perspective. It's really difficult to tell from an objective, centrist perspective, because there's nobody in the States covering the news from that perspective.

I've pretty consistently called out lies about Obama--Kenyan, Muslim, not "natural born citizen" among others. So I really don't see the need to offer any apologies there. What things do you think are lies about Obama that I haven't called out?

As for what would it take for me to believe that his motives are good, a few things come to mind...

Propose and back a healthcare policy that was based on good systems worldwide instead of bad.
Not tell us, "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your health care you can keep your health care" when those clearly were not the case, and he apparently knew full well that they weren't.
Not tell us that the mandate is not a tax, and then have his solicitor general defend it as a tax in the Supreme Court.
Stop making idle threats regarding foreign policy situations where he has no ability to carry out those threats.
Tell us what the real relationship with Bill Ayers was. You don't launch your political career in the living room of "just some guy in the neighborhood."
Unseal his university and law school records. In that regard, I would support a law that made it mandatory for presidential candidates to make such records public. We got those things when we hired people, and when we're hiring a president we deserve no less than when I'm hiring a gas revenue accountant. And if that trips up a republican, he or she deserves it.
Show an understanding that compromise means I give up something to get you to give up something, not you give up everything to come over to my way.

One other thing. He's not "our president." He's your president. I have absolutely no use for that SOB. I'll respect the office, but not the current occupant.

(03-28-2014 11:38 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:21 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No hissyfit, just stating the obvious. It's inappropriate to describe ANY investigation as closed until the evidence is presented. And if the IRS is not obstructing, then what are they doing?

Gathering the information.

The request is for ALL e-mails of more than just a few people. Just doesn't happen with a wave of a wand. Especially from a bloated government agency.

This is correct, it won't happen with the wave of a wand. I would imagine it could take an IT staff of say, 10 people, an entire afternoon to collect the e-mails from several dozen people.

See? We can agree on some things!

Well, we can certainly agree that you don't have any sort of background in IT.

So, then, how long? What would be your estimate for collecting Ms. Lerners e-mails from this time period?

Well, since emails are much like the dead sea scrolls, it'll probably take until at least February of 2017 to extract those emails from their places hidden in caves.

(03-28-2014 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:38 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:21 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Gathering the information.

The request is for ALL e-mails of more than just a few people. Just doesn't happen with a wave of a wand. Especially from a bloated government agency.

This is correct, it won't happen with the wave of a wand. I would imagine it could take an IT staff of say, 10 people, an entire afternoon to collect the e-mails from several dozen people.

See? We can agree on some things!

Well, we can certainly agree that you don't have any sort of background in IT.

So, then, how long? What would be your estimate for collecting Ms. Lerners e-mails from this time period?

I don't know...and it's not just for her. They want several others as well. The guy at the IRS told them how long it would take. He knows what systems they have in place for archival and such. He has no reason to lie for Lerner. She's gone.

What do you mean "you don't know"? You claim I don't know anything about IT yet you can't provide answer either. Aren't you the code guy or something? The turbotax expert or such?

I could compile all my e-mails from April of xxxx, to October of xxxx in about 5 minutes. You telling me it is really going to take this partisan hack guy YEARS to do the same?

As the resident IT expert guy, you don't find that a bit funny? Why do they have to submit ALL of these elusive e-mails at once? How about starting with that lying bithc Lerner and going from there? mayeb a weeks worth at a time?

How about that idea, how long would putting together a weeks worth at a time take? Years my asss and you know this is a cover-up of something.

C'mon JMU, get real. You can't piecemeal them. You'd have no context whatsoever. That's probably the majority of the issue. And no, I'm not an IT guy. I'm an analyst. I tell programmers what to program and then test their work. But anyone who does anything with computers knows that e-mails get deleted and stored in all kinds of places. As I said, you don't just wave a wand. And since NONE of us know the IRS systems for keeping e-mails, we have to trust the guy who does know them. Sorry, but I'd have to believe that a major head in the IRS might just have a few more e-mail correspondences than you or I do.

Quote:Koskinen has previously said the agency would cooperate with the investigation, but until now the agency has limited the documents to those found using certain search terms, like "tea party," related to the investigation.

But by expanding to include every Lerner email, Koskinen warned lawmakers the effort will take enormous amounts of time. That is because the agency is restricted by law from divulging taxpayers' confidential details.

To ensure no accidental disclosure, Koskinen said the IRS is must go through Lerner's emails one-by-one to redact any such information before sending them to the committee.

"My guess is there is no way to get this information before the end of the year," the IRS chief said of the emails.

He later added that gathering all the information so far subpoenaed by the committee, including applications for tax exempt status, could take "years."

(03-28-2014 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:42 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:32 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Let's see here.................... We have a 5-4 decision on Citizens United where the GOP holds a 6-3 appointment advantage and we are surprised that the majority of 504c's are from Republican sources in nature???????? This is some great mystery?????? Holy freaking cripes are you guys obtuse.

Perhaps that's because GOP appointments tend not to be the hacks that we get from the dems.

But the point is that is was *exclusively* right leaning 504cs that were targeted.

By the way I bet you still won't say in one sentence what caused the Citizens United case?

No, it wasn't. Exclusive would mean only GOP. There were liberal groups targeted as well. Not as intensely, but they were targeted too.

Which Liberal groups were audited?

(03-28-2014 02:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes I know how the IRS operates. And as you wrote yourself, their efforts to go after leftist groups were not as intense (less like the IRS?) as against rightist groups.

As for "never before seen level," seriously? How many movies have been made about killing Obama?

Sorry dude, but I stopped reading when you brought up this bull**** again. I already told you that movie (Death of a President) was a foreign film and was a fictional account about what would happen to the US should our president (who happened to be Bush at that time) be assassinated. It wasn't a movie about killing Bush.

Stop acting like a typical partisan hack.

(03-28-2014 03:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:42 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 11:32 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Let's see here.................... We have a 5-4 decision on Citizens United where the GOP holds a 6-3 appointment advantage and we are surprised that the majority of 504c's are from Republican sources in nature???????? This is some great mystery?????? Holy freaking cripes are you guys obtuse.

Perhaps that's because GOP appointments tend not to be the hacks that we get from the dems.

But the point is that is was *exclusively* right leaning 504cs that were targeted.

By the way I bet you still won't say in one sentence what caused the Citizens United case?

No, it wasn't. Exclusive would mean only GOP. There were liberal groups targeted as well. Not as intensely, but they were targeted too.

Which Liberal groups were audited?

Which conservative ones were?

(03-28-2014 03:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  C'mon JMU, get real. You can't piecemeal them. You'd have no context whatsoever. That's probably the majority of the issue. And no, I'm not an IT guy. I'm an analyst. I tell programmers what to program and then test their work. But anyone who does anything with computers knows that e-mails get deleted and stored in all kinds of places.

False... Anyone who is an IT guy and who has worked for the government knows incremental backups of data stores are typically taken *nightly*. Further they understand the data retention policies state that after a period (usually 6 mos to a year) those cold backups are taken off of hot disk, itemized, recorded, and set to a storage facility.

While it's true these things can take a few weeks to get together it should take no longer because all big organizations have a specific protocol to recover these things for legal reasons.

Quote:As I said, you don't just wave a wand. And since NONE of us know the IRS systems for keeping e-mails, we have to trust the guy who does know them. Sorry, but I'd have to believe that a major head in the IRS might just have a few more e-mail correspondences than you or I do.

That's the thing about computers Tom... It should not matter if there are 10 or 10,000 emails Once you get the data hot (two week process at most) recovering them all is pretty simple.

The funny part is if the IRS wants to audit you try to tell them it will take 6 months to get the documents together...

Actually BIE, as long as you stay in communication with the IRS, they're usually pretty accommodating on time frames in audits. They just don't like it when you ignore them.

But as per the piece I quoted above, the majority of the time with the e-mails will be redacting personal taxpayer information from them. And they have to scan them one by one to do so.