If TEA Party members and people who belong to groups with "Patriot" in the name were statistically more apt to apply for tax exempt status where it is not justified, then you would have a point. So you can't claim profiling. Remember, this was not an audit. This was an application for tax exempt status, all of which were granted, by the way, AFTER THE ELECTION. Hell, the IRS didn't even follow their own guidelines:

See, these groups can't operate until they receive the blessing from the IRS. What the IRS did was use the power of the federal government to effectively shut down political opposition until after Obama's reelection.

How does "Patriot" make you think of tax dodgers?

Also, if the IRS were looking for tax dodgers, they wouldn't have been asking for information like family member names and their political affiliation. This was not about taxes. This was about shutting down conservative groups until AFTER the election. This was a delaying tactic, not an audit. I should also add that NONE of the targeted groups, over 300 lost their tax exempt status.

From The AP:

I'm a libertarian and I can tell you that if the federal government does not have explicit permission from the Constitution to do something, than it is supposed to be unconstitutional for them to do so. At least that's what the 10th Amendment says. It also says that those powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states. The 10th Amendment is in the Constitution, by the way.

So, in using your Bangladesh example, it would be up to the state and local governments to handle the regulation of the business listed in your example. If the building collapsed, then it's your governor's fault, not the president's. That's the beauty of how it's SUPPOSED to work. If your state has lax regulations and you don't feel safe at your job, you are free to move to a state that has stricter regulations. Same thing goes for health care, speed limits, education system... everything that the federal government is not given permission to regulate.

(Of course, there is some wiggle room with the Commerce Clause, but if a company exists entirely within a single state and does all their business in that same state, the feds have no Constitutional authority to regulate them until the Constitution is amended giving them that right.)

You said to ask a libertarian. I answered.

Well someone sic'ed the IRS on Obama's enemies list. Tell me, who's in charge of the IRS? Where does the buck stop?

What's today? You will notice that damaging stories are always released on Friday when they want something forgotten. The press gets a pass because they can claim to cover it, but it will be forgotten by Monday and we'll be back to the American Idol judges getting fired.

Sorry, but when the IRS starts asking for the names and political affiliations of family members and a list of donors, it starts to get a bit creepy.

Also the "TEA Party" is not really a party at all, at least not on the national level. Mitt Romney was the nominee for the Republican Party. Barack Obama was the nominee for the Democrat Party. Who was the nominee for the TEA Party? No one! Why, because it's not really a party. See, TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. The rallies were called TEA Parties because it sounded cute and exemplified a tax revolt. The name stuck. But it's not an official political party and yes, they are legally tax exempt.

You seriously believe this was an innocent mistake? Tell me again why they were asking for the names and political affiliations of family members?

Why not a choice? What's wrong with a button that says, "Unmask Password"?

And, sorry, but when developers decide what's best for me, that absolutely IS something to get up in arms about. Maybe I do install my OS in front of a crowd. Maybe I'm installing a real world system at a company that with a policy that says all systems must have the same password in front of people as part of a training course or at a cubicle next to someone who has not business knowing the password.

My point is, the people who make these decisions have no idea where I'm going to be installing these systems or what my circumstances may be. If shadowing the password is a bad thing, then give me a damn button and let ME make the choice. Choice is good, right?

Actually, that "well regulated militia" part is proof that the Second Amendment was not to protect deer hunters, collectors or hobbyists. It was to protect the citizens from invaders and an abusive government. "Well regulated militia" is completely open to interpretation. My family can make up a "well regulated militia". Understand that at the time it was written, a "well regulated militia" meant farmers who could grab their gun and hit the streets to stand in a straight line and fire en masse. "Well regulated" meant that they all fired when someone said "FIRE!"

As for the national guard, that can no longer qualify since it is under the control of the federal government. I know, it's not "officially" under the federal government, but I know a lot of guardsmen who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who would disagree.

Actually, there are quite a few people who remain on unemployment and welfare because they can't find a job that will pay what they are making from the government. It's not that they are saying "I would make more but I'd just get taxed more." They are saying, "I'd get a job, but I can't afford to!"

Actually, the money that was invested initially was already taxed once. If you do the math, you'll find that the government would actually make MORE money if they taxed capital gains at the standard income tax rate, and allowed investors to deduct any investments.

Let's do the math:

If Joe makes $1000 extra he wants to invest, the government takes 35% off the top, or $350. Joe can only invest $650. Let's say his investment makes 10%, or $65 profit. The government takes 15% of that, or $9.75. The government gets a total of $359.75. Joe gets a total of $705.25

Now, let's say that the government DIDN'T tax Joe's $1000, allowing him to differ the tax. He is allowed to invest a full $1000. If he makes the same 10%, he makes $100. When he cashes out, the government taxes it all at the full 35%, or $385. So the government gets $385, which is more than $359.75, and Joe gets $715, which is more than $705.25.

Current:
Government: $359.75
Joe: $705.25

If investment were deducted:
Government: $385
Joe: $715

It's a win-win. Both Joe and the government would get MORE money. However, it will never happen because people like you would rather see Joe suffer, even if it means more suffering from you.

The Constitution trumps any laws created by the legislative branches of the federal and state governments as well as any executive orders by governors or the president. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, or it's supposed to be anyway.

The T-72 and Mig 29 were not "antiquated soviet equipment" in 1992. Hell, they are still considered quality hardware today. Sure, there were an awful lot of T-54's out there, but they popped just the same as the T-72s.

It was training that made the difference. Not equipment.

I got my definition of "liberate" from speaking with Kuwaitis shortly after the war in, of all places, Kuwait! Walking through downtown Kuwait City with my BDU's on, I had a hard time making it from place to place and no one wanted to take my money. I would stop by a coffee shop and as the waiter was refusing to charge me, a couple of other guys in the shop demanded that they be the ones to pay for my coffee. One chased me down the street to give me my tip back. (I still don't know if I was supposed to tip).

So, yeah! The Kuwaitis I spoke with certainly felt liberated.

You do realize that when the US liberated Kuwait in the '90's, that Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world, don't you? This military was not only large, but battle hardened after fighting Iran for years. That kind of blows a whole in your whole " the US only attack weak countries" theory, doesn't it?

Libertarians are about a smaller federal government and expanded states' rights. Under a Libertarian Utopia, it would be up to your state to limit the power of big business... or not. Either way, your voice gets louder and your vote counts for more the smaller the election gets. In other words, your vote counts more in smaller, local elections than it does in large federal ones.