Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

IRS admits they deliberately harrassed Conservative groups Options · View
MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:36:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,081
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


They were singled out for review as to their tax exempt status. There is a sound reason for singling out political groups who are applying for tax exempt status. Their non-profit status wasn't been reviewed, the review was to determine whether or not there were groups abusing their tax exempt status.

The article, on The Blaze, is full of obvious right wing talking points. Hidden away in the article is this, "Lerner stressed during her talk that the practice was not motivated by political bias." It is only conservatives that insist that it was.




Uh huh. Then why the big apology? Something's fishy, and because it's going to end here, we'll never know how fishy it is.

overmykneenow
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 2:05:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 966
Location: United Kingdom
Fishy maybe - but is it wrong?

I would think it stands to reason to suspect that organisations that name themselves after a protest on direct taxation might be more predisposed towards avoiding tax.

It's a bit like people driving high-horsepower cars being singled out at speedchecks - it's not fair but if they aren't breaking the speed limit what do they have to worry about?

Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead
elitfromnorth
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 7:37:27 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,589
Location: Burrowed, Norway
MrNudiePants wrote:


This makes me even more suspicious of Lerner. Wouldn't someone who was on the up-and-up have stood by her math, instead of just agreeing with her naysayers, and hoping everything will just blow over?


Sarcasm? "Oh, I'm a manager for the IRS, but I'm really really shite at math." Doubt you get anywhere in a top level position unless you have some knowledge of math, since you have to be able to read budgets and shit...

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
ByronLord
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 1:07:56 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 721
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Buz wrote:


Actually it just seems like groups were singled out for their political views.

Superpacs are just as abundant for either left or right politically. I wouldn't mind that 100% of all superpacs get a special review. But unless that is done equally then it would not be right.


Not necessarily.

When Freedomworks imploded it was because the owners were squabbling over who would make money from it. A lot of 'non-profit' political groups are fronts for fundraising scams.

The way the scam works is that the owners of the group divert fundraising and advertising contracts through shell companies they control. They take a 20% cut off each one so something like a third of all the money raised is going into the owner's pockets. Which is why Dick Armey wanted his $400K /year payout from Freedomworks. He thought he had earned that money.

Most of the money raised is ploughed straight back into more fund raising. So the owners can get very rich indeed. Or did you think that all those people preaching the values of self-interest weren't practicing what they preached.

If you have one such group that has been identified as a fraud then it only makes sense to take a look at similar groups to see if the same people might be behind them.

The other area where fraud came in is the widespread use of tax exempt groups to bypass political fundraising controls and raise money anonymously. It is well established that Karl Rove raised a half billion dollars through two funds that were registered as being primarily non political then spent all the money on political attack ads contrary to the undertakings made when registering them.

So the hearings are going to be rather interesting, should they actually happen. I think the GOP walked straight into a trap here. First of all there were numerous complaints of similar and worse activities under Bush. But more importantly, it allows the Senate to now go trawling through the filth of Rove's fundraising operations.

Rove was one of the biggest profiteers from the fundraising scam which is why he took in such a vast amount of money and spent it all without anything to show for it. The only measurable impact Rove had on the 2012 election was that he might have helped defeat a couple of moderate GOP candidates in the primaries and replaced them with Tea Party types who lost.

LadyX
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:34:44 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
From what I read, that "1/4" figure just pertained to the number of groups with "tea party" in their name, but there were many, many others who were conservative in either name or type. I'm not sure what the percentage is, and I don't really care. What's important to me is that the federal government not zero in on a particular group or individual based on their beliefs. That's entirely unacceptable, and this should be obvious.

I hope they investigate it fully, that investigators are given full unimpeded and immediate access, and I hope they terminate whomever ordered this special scrutiny for certain groups. They can say it wasn't politically motivated, and we have a choice of whether to believe that or not. Personally, I'd feel both stupid and like a willing liberal sycophant for doing so, especially at this stage. I'm far from a conservative, but I think an open mind and some intellectual honesty is called for here. Is saying "it wasn't necessarily a targeting of conservatives", with a straight face, anything more than hopeful thinking? Sure, Maybe it's nothing, just some stray words and a big to-do that turns out to be no big deal, but let's find out first before we declare the administration faultless and the GOP "crazy as usual".

How this doesn't- at least on the surface- look really, really bad to anyone is beyond me. I hope I'm wrong and that my intuition is overreacting. Any political targeting by previous administrations does not make this one's alleged actions any less reprehensible.

Oh by the way, did you guys see the news about the justice department seizing records and phone lines of AP reporters in 2012?

So is everything truly on the up-and-up? Is nothing as bad as it seems like it could be? Is this administration protecting as much freedom as it seems to be abusing? Can we just keep blaming Bush and pretending that two wrongs make a right, just to keep our liberal caps on straight?

Seems (and probably is) naive, but I just want to know the truth, even if it turns out badly for those I nominally support. Nobody, liberal or conservative or otherwise, deserves to be above the law, and nobody deserves undue scrutiny for their perceived ideological threats.
principessa
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:38:40 PM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 3,940
Location: Canada
If these allegations are true, of course the IRS has been inappropriate. They are supposed to be scrupulously impartial.

The irony is that these tea party groups were not charitable, but indeed were political, and therefore should not have had tax exempt status as I understand it. And yes, this applies to liberal groups as well.

Ruthie
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:12:50 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,185
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Is saying "it wasn't necessarily a targeting of conservatives", with a straight face, anything more than hopeful thinking? .


Well, since it turned out that the great outcry against Acorn was all smoke and mirrors and cleverly edited video, and the forced resignation of Shirley Sherrod, it's going to take some proof that it was a deliberate action before I'm going to accept that it's anything other than more right wing hype.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:17:54 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


Well, since it turned out that the great outcry against Acorn was all smoke and mirrors and cleverly edited video, and the forced resignation of Shirley Sherrod, it's going to take some proof that it was a deliberate action before I'm going to accept that it's anything other than more right wing hype.


You mean other than the admission that it was? The land of "if" is in the rear view mirror on this one. The only question is who orders this to occur. The " why" is technically up for debate as well, I suppose.
Ruthie
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:30:25 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,185
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


You mean other than the admission that it was? The land of "if" is in the rear view mirror on this one. The only question is who orders this to occur. The " why" is technically up for debate as well, I suppose.


There has been no admission that this was done for political purposes. The IRS has denied that it was political, 75% of the groups that were flagged weren't conservative groups, and this was done at a time when there was an increase in applications for new 501(c)4's, many of whom were trying to get tax exempt status and use their money for electioneering. 501(c)4 status is only for education and social services, not politics.

Has anyone here actually read the text of what Lerner said, or does everyone just accept the story as the right wing media puts it out. Most of the quotes on the Blaze article are from straight up Republican and right wing sources.

Letting political groups claim 501(c)4 status is certainly good for the right wing. They do everything they can now to buy elections. Let's all just stand back and let them destroy the credibility of the IRS in looking into groups that want to pretend to be for education and social services and use the money for elections instead. If the IRS can't be trusted to do that, and obviously they can't because one office in one city flagged groups for review if they might have political purposes, that's so nice for the Koch brothers and the Rove types.

LadyX
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:45:16 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


There has been no admission that this was done for political purposes. The IRS has denied that it was political, 75% of the groups that were flagged weren't conservative groups,


From what I've seen, 75% didn't specifically include the phrase "tea party". Many more included other phrasings, and it has been stated that the profiling extended to groups "concerned with the constitution". Exact percentage might be beside the point.

Quote:
Has anyone here actually read the text of what Lerner said, or does everyone just accept the story as the right wing media puts it out. Most of the quotes on the Blaze article are from straight up Republican and right wing sources.



Yes, and thanks so much for assuming otherwise. I don't know what the fuck a Blaze publishes. I'm much more familiar with mainstream media and newspapers, flawed as they are. I recall reading Chicago Tribune and Washington Post re: this issue, among others. At last check, neither is considered in the tank for tea partiers and neocons.

And yet, I hope you're right, that it's some dastardly ploy by the evil right (and they've had their share), but you really believe conservative groups would be zeroed in on without politics factoring in? The quotes and sources seem to leave that failing the smell test (though technically it is possible).

The legality of the tax status is a separate issue. Impropriety ha been established within the process of investigating that. Unless one believes its all a fabrication, I guess.
Ruthie
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:56:57 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,185
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


Yes, and thanks so much for assuming otherwise. I don't know what the fuck a Blaze publishes. I'm much more familiar with mainstream media and newspapers, flawed as they are. I recall reading Chicago Tribune and Washington Post re: this issue, among others.

And yet, I hope you're right, that it's some dastardly ploy by the evil right (and they've had their share), but you really believe conservative groups would be zeroed in on without politics factoring in? The quotes and sources seem to leave that failing all smell tests miserably.

The legality of the tax status is a separate issue. Impropriety ha been established within the process of investigating that. Unless one believes its all a fabrication, I guess.


All I'm saying is that the right wing has a record of blowing things out of proportion to make Democratic administrations look bad, and liberal groups look bad. They allow a lot of leeway to right wing spinners. This is from AP: "Lerner said the number of groups filing for this tax-exempt status more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, to more than 3,400. To handle the influx, the IRS centralized its review of these applications in an office in Cincinnati.

Lerner said this was done to develop expertise among staffers and consistency in their reviews. As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn't the group's primary activity."

One of the things that the people in Cincinnati did was to make a list of things to look for in applications, one of the things they came up with was Tea Party. How is that inappropriate, seeing as the Tea Party is a political movement? Another word, "Patriot," isn't necessarily a conservative word. Are liberals not allowed to be patriots? How is linking the word "Patriot," to a flag for violation of tax exempt status targeting right wing groups?

The right wing would like us to believe that everyone with the word Patriot in their name is a conservative, but that isn't really the case. Lerner and the IRS have consistently denied that this was done for political purposes. How is that an admission that it was?
Ruthie
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:00:21 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,185
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


Yes, and thanks so much for assuming otherwise.


The question was "Has anybody read Lerner's statement?" It wasn't asking if you specifically read it. I wasn't making any kind of personal statement toward you. The Blaze is the article quoted in the initial question on the thread.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:18:47 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


All I'm saying is that the right wing has a record of blowing things out of proportion to make Democratic administrations look bad, and liberal groups look bad. They allow a lot of leeway to right wing spinners. This is from AP: "Lerner said the number of groups filing for this tax-exempt status more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, to more than 3,400. To handle the influx, the IRS centralized its review of these applications in an office in Cincinnati.

Lerner said this was done to develop expertise among staffers and consistency in their reviews. As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn't the group's primary activity."

One of the things that the people in Cincinnati did was to make a list of things to look for in applications, one of the things they came up with was Tea Party. How is that inappropriate, seeing as the Tea Party is a political movement? Another word, "Patriot," isn't necessarily a conservative word. Are liberals not allowed to be patriots? How is linking the word "Patriot," to a flag for violation of tax exempt status targeting right wing groups?

The right wing would like us to believe that everyone with the word Patriot in their name is a conservative, but that isn't really the case. Lerner and the IRS have consistently denied that this was done for political purposes. How is that an admission that it was?


1) it wasn't just the Cincinnati office, as it turns out.
2) yes, technically, those phrasings aren't proprietary to conservative and libertarian politics, but to claim plausible deniability that they were coded as conservatives takes a high degree of self-delusion. There's no way you'd believe some homeland security hack, circa 2003, if he claimed he wasn't profiling liberals just because the targeted groups contained the words "progressive" or "change" in their titles. To wit:
3)can you name a liberal or neutral group containing the word patriot? If you can name one, can you name two or three? Because ms. Lerner could not. And given that this issue dates back at least a few weeks internally, you would think she'd be at least minimally prepared to head off what appears at face value to be politically motivated profiling.
4)they've already changed their story. First it was just a few rogue low-level employees. Then it was just one office. Now it's multiple offices, including 2 in California. And if it's all a matter of vetting course,
5) why apologize and change the story to begin with?

You're right though, that often crises aren't as bad as they might seem. I hope that's the case here, despite how it all looks and sounds.

LadyX
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:19:36 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


The question was "Has anybody read Lerner's statement?" It wasn't asking if you specifically read it. I wasn't making any kind of personal statement toward you. The Blaze is the article quoted in the initial question on the thread.


Yes. As well as her QandA transcript.
Ruthie
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:20:32 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,185
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


Yes. As well as her QandA transcript.


Anyone else here read it besides LadyX and I?

One quote from her transcript: "What have we done to take care of this? Oh, let me back up. They didn’t do this because of any political bias. They did it because they were working together. This was a streamlined way for them to refer to the cases."

Here's another: "The problem in the (c)(4) area is that the kind of activity the organizations were doing is okay for (c)(4)s but it can’t be their primary activity. So that weighing and balancing is a little different than when we have a (c)(3) that says you can’t do any political activity. That’s a pretty easy question. So I guess my bottom line here is that we at the IRS should apologize for that, it was not intentional, and as soon as we found out what was going on, we took steps to make it better and I don’t expect that to reoccur."

The " it was not intentional, and as soon as we found out what was going on, we took steps to make it better and I don’t expect that to reoccur." is important too.

lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:12:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,343
Location: Alabama, United States
It should jar all Americans that any group is targeted because of their beliefs, and these groups were targeted. We can hope that that isn't the case, but that would be just a glimmer of hope. This, on top of a possible cover up of the events in Bengazi, and now the secret seizing of AP reporters' phone lines? This administration is corrupt and it's blatantly obvious. At least as corrupt as the previous administration. Where there's smoke, there's fire. It's happening on Pres. Obama's watch so he needs to take responsibility for the corruption.

Like LadyX said, on the surface this all looks really REALLY bad. Any politician should try extremely hard to avoid even a hint of impropriety. Pres Obama is swimming in it right now, a little truth and honesty and transparency is what's needed right now. Lies on top of lies are beginning to unravel. Lie to cover up the previous lie and the one before that, no one would be able to keep them all straight.

Also, with the IRS seemingly targeting Conservative groups, it should be a little bit worrisome that the IRS will be charged with administering Obamacare.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
ByronLord
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:33:36 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 721
Location: Massachusetts, United States
lafayettemister wrote:
Also, with the IRS seemingly targeting Conservative groups, it should be a little bit worrisome that the IRS will be charged with administering Obamacare.


We don't know whether they were only targeting conservative groups.

The political groups were obviously not charities but they were claiming a charitable non-political purpose. Seems suspicious to me.

Were progressive groups being given a pass on this or were the same examiners looking at them as well? That is the question that should be asked.

As far as we know, the Obama DoJ got a warrant for their wiretap on the AP. Bush never got a warrant.

We know that Bush abused the IRS to target progressive groups and to perform warrantless wiretaps on liberals. It would be just as bad if Obama was doing the same thing. But this is why there need to be controls on the use of such powers.

It was the GOP that made any abuses possible by passing the indemnity act to legalize Bush's warrantless wiretap abuses. Now they are in finger point mode.

Maybe we should go back to the old system where people went to jail for committing torture or wiretapping without a warrant? Lets have an investigation of why these alleged abuses were possible.

Lets stick to what we know rather than what we think likely. I think it very likely that when Bush was Governor of Texas he used to jack off while listening to executions. It is exactly the sick sort of thing the little psychopath would do. His fondness for executing people is documented as is his making fun of people he had killed. But I cant prove it so I don't claim that he did.

lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:59:45 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,343
Location: Alabama, United States
ByronLord wrote:


We don't know whether they were only targeting conservative groups.

The political groups were obviously not charities but they were claiming a charitable non-political purpose. Seems suspicious to me.

Were progressive groups being given a pass on this or were the same examiners looking at them as well? That is the question that should be asked.

As far as we know, the Obama DoJ got a warrant for their wiretap on the AP. Bush never got a warrant.

We know that Bush abused the IRS to target progressive groups and to perform warrantless wiretaps on liberals. It would be just as bad if Obama was doing the same thing. But this is why there need to be controls on the use of such powers.

It was the GOP that made any abuses possible by passing the indemnity act to legalize Bush's warrantless wiretap abuses. Now they are in finger point mode.

Maybe we should go back to the old system where people went to jail for committing torture or wiretapping without a warrant? Lets have an investigation of why these alleged abuses were possible.

Lets stick to what we know rather than what we think likely. I think it very likely that when Bush was Governor of Texas he used to jack off while listening to executions. It is exactly the sick sort of thing the little psychopath would do. His fondness for executing people is documented as is his making fun of people he had killed. But I cant prove it so I don't claim that he did.


You just did claim that he did. Pres. Bush did many things wrong, you'll get no arguement from me there. But he isn't in office right now and it has no bearing on what has happened on Pres. Obama's watch. Gun advocates have been saying for months they're afraid of a gun registry because it would give the government a way to spy on them and use it against them. This confirms that suspicion as possible.

It's pretty clear, with just a little bit of common sense, that conservative groups were targeted. I don't have much faith in government to do the right thing, neither a liberal nor a conservative administration. They all are corrupt but it seems that no one is willing to call out our current president on it. Why is he getting a free pass? Honestly, if this same story had come out during the Bush administration, would you be taking it so lightly? The same intellectual questions should be asked regardless of which party is in office.

Jay Carney, is that you?





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
matt55
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:02:45 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/31/2013
Posts: 374
Location: Atlanta area, United States
I agree that we should just stick to the facts. We don't know this is tied to the administration yet. As a libertarian (small L) I think all administrations are corrupt in some ways, some more than others.

That being said, the fact we do know is that the IRS has publicly admitted and apologized for targeting conservative groups more than just the usual background checks. Another fact is that it did not just come out. People have known about this since 2011.

This is NOT a fact...it seems like in 2 years time there would have been evidence that they were also targeting liberal groups. I would imagine democrats are scrambling to find out to make this all go away. I think we will find out when it all gets investigated.
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:20:17 AM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
Indeed, the trend here (myself included) has been to clobber the conservatives for perceived ill will/malfeasance/duplicity/venality/barbarism/bigotry/sexism, etc., and to reserve criticism of Obama and his administration to a relatively small subset of mutually agreed-to items of record. I know I've done it. Why? Because I'm partisan. I trust conservatives less than I trust liberals, in general. I feel threatened and my intelligence feels insulted by many conservative talking points, and less so by liberal talking points. I want Obama and the left-leaning makers of law to do what's best for the country, and to be right about it. I don't want tin-foil hatters to be right about anything that they throw against the wall in hopes that something will stick. I don't want to feel like a sucker and a mark for supporting him*.

The speculation I have no issue with. Without that, there wouldn't be much to talk about really, but it's getting less credible to volley every suggestion of wrongdoing by Obama et.al. back with some variation of "well, maybe...but...but, when Bush and the Republicans...."

We get it. Those were some bad dudes running the country from 2000-2008. I don't have any question about how bad they were, but that was then. And this- with a guy who made such a huge deal about transparency, and actually campaigned (with a straight face, no less) on 'Hope and Change', and post-partisan government action- is now. A handful of scandals, some of which inevitably is all smoke no fire (or at least we hope so), but is there nothing there, at all? Or are we liberals and left-leaners just going to crouch down and demand not only the smoking gun but the spent bullets before we discuss the possibility that there's a power overreach? The fact that I'm not a libertarian activist gives me no comfort, and hanging hopes on "well, maybe they targeted some liberal groups too" is just looking the other way. But hey, the IRS supervisor said it wasn't politically motivated, so maybe we should just take her at her word.

And it's true that we don't know whether it goes all the way up to Obama or not. But just as it doesn't pass a common-sense test to say that targeting conservative groups wasn't politically motivated, it also fails miserably to buy the same excuse we've gotten on: AP wiretaps, Benghazi, fast and furious, and IRS: "We had no knowledge of this. We heard about it on the news, just like you did." Not saying they're "guilty" of anything in any of those cases, but you truly didn't know about any of the goings-on in any of those situations, Barack? Really?




*and save the speech about how you can't trust any politician to be beholden to the electorate or to govern honestly and earnestly, and are inherently a sucker and a mark for taking politics seriously in the first place. I know those talking points well; I even agree with most of them. But I'm just not cut out for political nihilism. At some point, laws get passed that affect us, and some are better for us than others, despite the fact that everything is set up to placate the handful of corporations and consortiums that hold sway over the 'free' world. Therefore, I'll support the least harmful candidate and hope I haven't made the wrong choice.
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:40:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,343
Location: Alabama, United States
Indeed, Ms X.

When Osama Bin Laden was killed, lots of conservatives tried to say shit like "well, Bush did all the leg work for this blah blah blah", "Obama didn't catch OBL, the Navy seals did blah blah blah". No, Bin Laden was found and killed on Pres. Obama's watch. He gets the credit for that, as he well should. When the Dept. Of Homeland Security fucked up the whole Hurricane Katrina thing, Pres. Bush was in command.. he gets the fucking blame for all that epic cluster fuck. His name is/was tarnished by that, not just what's-his-name Brownie.

These things all happened on Pres Obama's watch so he's going to have to shoulder some of the burden for it. If we turn a blind eye, again, then what will be done next? What other agency will be corrupted under his watch, while violating the rights of Americans, and he escapes responsibility again? Under his term, the ATF, CIA, DOJ, IRS have all been caught in questionable circumstances. The President can't claim to be unaware and innocent of all these events.


edit... and now there's possibly more discriminatory governmental breaches.... as of now this is only being reported on a multitude of conservative sites. I saw a link posted on my facebook. Maybe it's not true, maybe partially true.. but in light of recent events the info in the report isn't impossible.

The EPA, under the Freedom of Information Act has granted fee waivers to "green" or "liberal" organizations 75 out of 82 requests, a waiver 92% of the time.

Conservative groups have been denied or rejected fee waivers 21 out of 26 times or 81% of the time.

Green/liberal groups have a 92% success rate, while Conservative groups have a 19% success rate. If true, that gap is too wide to be accidental.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:12:54 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
IRS Provided Confidential Info on 31 Conservative Groups to Well-funded Liberal Non-Profit Journalist Organization.

Quote:
ProPublica on Monday reported that the same IRS division that targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny during the 2012 election cycle provided the investigative-reporting organization with confidential applications for tax-exempt status.

That revelation contradicts previous statements from the agency and may represent a violation of federal guidelines. Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS sector that reviews tax-exemption applications, told a congressional oversight committee in April 2012 that IRS code prohibited the agency from providing information about groups that had not yet been approved.


I predict substantial house-cleaning at the IRS, in short order.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:26:17 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,817
A lot of Americans who voted for Obama, and then voted for him again, believed in hope and change, and wanted the hope and change he said he would bring. When Americans don't get what they voted for they can get pretty dang pissed off, right. Why didn't his vision of hope and change ever materialize? Well remember, the economy was crashing on a scale of a locomotive plowing into the center of town! ALL of the focus had to go into stopping the depression the WORLD was heading for. And unfortunately, a train doesn't stop on a dime. It slows down...slowly. To get a train going again occurs...slowly. As in...chug, chug, chug...I think I can...I think I can. Obama also has had the party of "No" to deal with, filibustering more times than all the filibusters in history COMBINED. So...buh bye hope and change while this guy tries to get something done. I think that whole scenario is not only sad. It is treasonous. The American people voted for this President and those congressmen to get something done. Sadly, not much has been accomplished

In regarding to the IRS debacle, anytime a govt agency is profiling any group...it's wrong on the highest level of wrong. However, and sadly, it happens. Investigate...investigate the investigation, as they will...trying to find a way to pin the blame directly to Obama's lapel like a carnation. And somehow find a way to extend the blame to the next democrat running for President, as well.

I said in an earlier post, Various government agencies have been profiling groups for a long time. But it never bothers the average man until the profiling starts hitting home. Here is an example of what I meant. http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2281. The NAACP was profiled because of statements it's chairman, Julian Bond, made. Chairman Julian Bond criticized the Bush administration's policies in his speech to the group's July convention. The NAACP is a 501(c)(3) organization, and as such is barred from intervening in elections, but is allowed to comment on policies and government actions. The NAACP questioned the timing of the IRS action, calling it a politically motivated attempt to silence the organization and discourage blacks from voting. The IRS denied political motivation and referred the matter to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The report from TIGTA reviews the structure and implementation of IRS enforcement in the 2004 election, finding no political motivation, but not identifying whether the NAACP was in the sample of cases it reviewed. This investigation went on for TWO YEARS! Where was the outrage? Where was the headlines? What was the difference? IMHO, most conservatives are white. Most groups associated with "patriot" are white while most associated with the NAACP are black. The IRS investigation into the NAACP ended on Aug.31, 2006, two years after it began and the only outrage demonstrated by anyone was the outrage of the lawyers for the NAACP who won, in the end.

So, again I say, Various government agencies have been profiling groups for a long time. But it never bothers the average man until the profiling starts hitting home. And that is outrageous and wrong. But in America...it happens.

Where is the outrage?
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:51:40 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
Kristind wrote:
A lot of Americans who voted for Obama, and then voted for him again, believed in hope and change, and wanted the hope and change he said he would bring. When Americans don't get what they voted for they can get pretty dang pissed off, right. Why didn't his vision of hope and change ever materialize? Well remember, the economy was crashing on a scale of a locomotive plowing into the center of town! ALL of the focus had to go into stopping the depression the WORLD was heading for. And unfortunately, a train doesn't stop on a dime. It slows down...slowly. To get a train going again occurs...slowly. As in...chug, chug, chug...I think I can...I think I can. Obama also has had the party of "No" to deal with, filibustering more times than all the filibusters in history COMBINED. So...buh bye hope and change while this guy tries to get something done. I think that whole scenario is not only sad. It is treasonous. The American people voted for this President and those congressmen to get something done. Sadly, not much has been accomplished

In regarding to the IRS debacle, anytime a govt agency is profiling any group...it's wrong on the highest level wrong. However, and sadly, it happens. Investigate...investigate the investigation, as they will...trying to find a way to pin the blame directly to Obama's lapel like a carnation. And somehow find a way to extend the blame to the next democrat running for President, as well.


In our partisan world, there's no question that on the right wing there is the hope that at least one of these scandals will lead all the way to the President, however unlikely that might be. I, on the other hand, am really hoping that none do. But as long as the truth comes out one way or the other, that's what's most important.

I don't blame Obama for the immediate and unrelenting truculence he got from the Republicans, and obviously he shoulders no blame for the economic collapse that preceded his presidency. Congress' intransigence has been unforgivable too, I agree.

No, my issues with the President are aside from all of those onerous circumstances. Without enumerating them all here, I'll just say that I wish that the campaign and vision that he ran with actually resembled the way in which he's chosen to govern. And that has very little to do with the challenges put before him. Hell, lots of us could do a pretty good "hope and change/transformative figure" routine if the congress and economy conspired to give us a clear path to do everything we wanted. But our leaders reveal themselves in the toughest of times, not the easiest. I've been disappointed with a lot of what's been revealed.

Quote:

I said in an earlier post, Various government agencies have been profiling groups for a long time. But it never bothers the average man until the profiling starts hitting home. Here is an example of what I meant. http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2281. The NAACP was profiled because of statements it's chairman, Julian Bond, made. Chairman Julian Bond criticized the Bush administration's policies in his speech to the group's July convention. The NAACP is a 501(c)(3) organization, and as such is barred from intervening in elections, but is allowed to comment on policies and government actions. The NAACP questioned the timing of the IRS action, calling it a politically motivated attempt to silence the organization and discourage blacks from voting. The IRS denied political motivation and referred the matter to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The report from TIGTA reviews the structure and implementation of IRS enforcement in the 2004 election, finding no political motivation, but not identifying whether the NAACP was in the sample of cases it reviewed. This investigation went on for TWO YEARS! Where was the outrage? Where was the headlines? What was the difference? IMHO, most conservatives are white. Most groups associated with "patriot" are white while most associated with the NAACP are black. The IRS investigation into the NAACP ended on Aug.31, 2006, two years after it began and the only outrage demonstrated by anyone was the outrage of the lawyers for the NAACP who won, in the end.

So, again I say, Various government agencies have been profiling groups for a long time. But it never bothers the average man until the profiling starts hitting home. And that is outrageous and wrong. But in America...it happens.
Where is the outrage?


You've got outrage now LOL. As for the NAACP, agreed. Equally (if not worse) reprehensible, and you may very well be right about the reasons behind less media coverage in that scandal. Though I think you'd agree that it makes a similar scandal on a different group no less unsavory, no matter how close to home it might or might not be to the beholder. It does happen, as you said, but any outrage necessary to prevent it from happening again is essential.
Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:43:08 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,185
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:



Uh huh. Then why the big apology? Something's fishy, and because it's going to end here, we'll never know how fishy it is.


Quite to the contrary, I think. I imagine we'll hear a great deal more about this than it really merits because it was something done to conservative groups. I fully expect congressional hearings and maybe even impeachment proceedings.
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:54:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,343
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


Quite to the contrary, I think. I imagine we'll hear a great deal more about this than it really merits because it was something done to conservative groups. I fully expect congressional hearings and maybe even impeachment proceedings.


Hypothetically speaking, if the President ordered this to happen (which I doubt) or if he knew about it but did nothing (more likely), what should happen to him? Does he qualify for impeachment or any other punishment?





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Monocle
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:32:42 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 286
lafayettemister wrote:


Hypothetically speaking, if the President ordered this to happen (which I doubt) or if he knew about it but did nothing (more likely), what should happen to him? Does he qualify for impeachment or any other punishment?


Both are highly unlikely to have happened. The IRS is not part of the administration, and has overreached its authority plenty of times before Obama took office.
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:25:04 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
From the Inspector General's Report on the IRS, issued May 14, 2013:

Quote:
The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions. p.2


--

I happen to agree with you, Monocle. I don't think there's any way that this leads all the way to Obama (though his spokesman said he found out about it a few weeks ago, yet he himself said he found out Friday, just like us), but if there's compelling evidence that it does, then there's no question he'd need to appear before Congress.
Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:02:58 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,185
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:


Both are highly unlikely to have happened. The IRS is not part of the administration, and has overreached its authority plenty of times before Obama took office.


George Will is already talking about impeachment. "Will noted that one of the items in the 1973 impeachment articles of then-President Richard Nixon, which ultimately led to his resignation, described the Nixon administration’s use of the power of income tax audits in a “discriminatory matter.”

As Michael Tomasky said, “Most Republican members of the House live in districts where it is a given that Obama is a socialist; that’s he bent on bringing the United States of America down…that he’s not a legitimate occupant of the Oval Office to start with.”

The Republican party sees this president as illegitimate. It was the same with Clinton in the nineties. They control the congress and the media. The search for scandal in order to find grounds for impeachment is the same. Between this and Benghazi, they'll come up with something to distract the population from what's really going on. Imagine how well the Republicans will be doing if they can get talk of impeachment started up around the 2014 elections.

Not that they don't already own the country anyway, of course. Obama has never been a progressive. Both he and the Clinton's are right of center. They are moderate Republicans. It's only how far right things have skewed that would make anyone think that Barak Obama is liberal. Even his health plan was a Republican plan. He has rolled over and given the Republicans almost every thing they've asked for.

I really don't know why I should care if he's impeached or not. It's all just theatre anyway.

I give up.
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:42:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,343
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


George Will is already talking about impeachment. "Will noted that one of the items in the 1973 impeachment articles of then-President Richard Nixon, which ultimately led to his resignation, described the Nixon administration’s use of the power of income tax audits in a “discriminatory matter.”

As Michael Tomasky said, “Most Republican members of the House live in districts where it is a given that Obama is a socialist; that’s he bent on bringing the United States of America down…that he’s not a legitimate occupant of the Oval Office to start with.”

The Republican party sees this president as illegitimate. It was the same with Clinton in the nineties. They control the congress and the media. The search for scandal in order to find grounds for impeachment is the same. Between this and Benghazi, they'll come up with something to distract the population from what's really going on. Imagine how well the Republicans will be doing if they can get talk of impeachment started up around the 2014 elections.

Not that they don't already own the country anyway, of course. Obama has never been a progressive. Both he and the Clinton's are right of center. They are moderate Republicans. It's only how far right things have skewed that would make anyone think that Barak Obama is liberal. Even his health plan was a Republican plan. He has rolled over and given the Republicans almost every thing they've asked for.

I really don't know why I should care if he's impeached or not. It's all just theatre anyway.

I give up.


For controlling Congress and the media, the Republicans aren't very good at getting the results they desire. If they really controlled all of Congress and the media, then Pres. Obama wouldn't have been elected to two consecutive terms in office. If they controlled Congress, House and Senate... Obamacare would have been tabled, gun control talks would be tabled, abortion related issues would be entirely different, same sex marriage wouldn't even be a possibility. As for scandal, yeah the Republicans are looking for anything they can against Pres. Obama. But, it ain't like he's making it hard to find scandal.

If Obama is right of center, then I'm the Dalai Lama.

The loyalty that is shown to this President, and the refusal to ask questions and demand answers truly baffles me. There were fanatical Pres W. Bush followers that could never ever see anything wrong with him or his administration, just buried their heads in the sand, put their fingers in their ears, and sang "la la la la la, i cannnn't hear you". Pres. Obama is getting much the same adoring and unquestioning treatment now. I swear, that man could drop kick a newborn infant off the Golden Gate Bridge and then use it as target practice with a machine gun on live television and all his lackeys in the general public and the MSM would lick his sphincter and blame it on W., Boehner, or Fox News.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.