IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Political Groups In 2012 Ele (1 Viewer)

[oso diablo]

My impression is that federal employees act in a far less partisan manner than they did many years ago when the federal government was smaller. I don't see why this unfortunate incident requires us to stop regulation.

Ah, head-winds vs. tail-winds, with a little strawman thrown in.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Pretty ridiculous that they would target based on a simple key word search. They should have cross referenced to blog postings and gun registration before flagging the files. Due diligence and all...

You dont think they do that for other stuff?

Sure they do, but this has "political" ramifications, not just "economical" which is why they announced the problem.

They find certain niches that try to avoid paying taxes and look deeper into those niches. Thats pretty standard and pretty smart.

But there is a difference from "cayman Islands" and "tea party".

 

[rockaction]

Pretty ridiculous that they would target based on a simple key word search. They should have cross referenced to blog postings and gun registration before flagging the files. Due diligence and all...

 

[rockaction]

Has the ACLU commented yet?

I interned for the ACLU. I remember in the office, there was a Bill of Rights with every Amendment listed except for the 2nd and 9th (iirc). I remember asking the guy and getting the expected chagrined response to that.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

My impression is that federal employees act in a far less partisan manner than they did many years ago when the federal government was smaller. I don't see why this unfortunate incident requires us to stop regulation.

Ah, head-winds vs. tail-winds, with a little strawman thrown in.

Well I don't understand what IK's point was then.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My impression is that federal employees act in a far less partisan manner than they did many years ago when the federal government was smaller. I don't see why this unfortunate incident requires us to stop regulation.

Ah, head-winds vs. tail-winds, with a little strawman thrown in.

Well I don't understand what IK's point was then.

I'll have to let oso flesh out that response. I don't think I got it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Has the ACLU commented yet?

I interned for the ACLU. I remember in the office, there was a Bill of Rights with every Amendment listed except for the 2nd and 9th (iirc). I remember asking the guy and getting the expected chagrined response to that.

There is a ninth amendment? I think that would be news to the courts.

 

[rockaction]

Has the ACLU commented yet?

I interned for the ACLU. I remember in the office, there was a Bill of Rights with every Amendment listed except for the 2nd and 9th (iirc). I remember asking the guy and getting the expected chagrined response to that.

There is a ninth amendment? I think that would be news to the courts.

Heh. Not to one or two of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut, IIRC. Randy Barnett has tried to revive it, too. I think the ACLU knew what they were doing when it wasn't on the board, though it could have been that that particular Bill of Rights that they posted could be because they largely deal with states, and it might have been only the incorporated Amendments at the time (disregarding the tenth, too).

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Has the ACLU commented yet?

I interned for the ACLU. I remember in the office, there was a Bill of Rights with every Amendment listed except for the 2nd and 9th (iirc). I remember asking the guy and getting the expected chagrined response to that.

There is a ninth amendment? I think that would be news to the courts.

Heh. Not to one or two of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut, IIRC. Randy Barnett has tried to revive it, too. I think the ACLU knew what they were doing when it wasn't on the board, though it could have been that that particular Bill of Rights that they posted could be because they largely deal with states, and it might have been only the incorporated Amendments at the time (disregarding the tenth, too).

In Griswold v. Connecticut one justice laughed at the very notion that the ninth amendment could ever be violated by a law passed by the people's elected legislatures. And another stated that if it didn't apply here it might just as well be null and void. That is not exactly comforting. Can't the answer just once be to the question "Where does that right come from" be "it always existed and should have been protected since 1791"?

Oh, and as for the tenth. Most of the time you hear people complaining about tenth amendment it is because conservatives want to reserve for their state the right to trample on some minority's freedoms so it would not surprise me that the ACLU rightfully from their perspective holds a diminished view of the 10th. The ACLU may also have been technically correct on the historical application of 2nd (until recently), but this is the one place they had a very odd stance that didn't make much sense. When you are for liberty in its purists sense that support should not be constrained by historical applications that restricted liberty.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't believe the story about the ACLU displaying a bill of rights with missing amendments.

 

[rockaction]

Has the ACLU commented yet?

I interned for the ACLU. I remember in the office, there was a Bill of Rights with every Amendment listed except for the 2nd and 9th (iirc). I remember asking the guy and getting the expected chagrined response to that.

There is a ninth amendment? I think that would be news to the courts.

Heh. Not to one or two of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut, IIRC. Randy Barnett has tried to revive it, too. I think the ACLU knew what they were doing when it wasn't on the board, though it could have been that that particular Bill of Rights that they posted could be because they largely deal with states, and it might have been only the incorporated Amendments at the time (disregarding the tenth, too).

In Griswold v. Connecticut one justice laughed at the very notion that the ninth amendment could ever be violated by a law passed by the people's elected legislatures. And another stated that if it didn't apply here it might just as well be null and void. That is not exactly comforting. Can't the answer just once be to the question "Where does that right come from" be "it always existed and should have been protected since 1791"?

Oh, and as for the tenth. Most of the time you hear people complaining about tenth amendment it is because conservatives want to reserve for their state the right to trample on some minority's freedoms so it would not surprise me that the ACLU rightfully from their perspective holds a diminished view of the 10th. The ACLU may also have been technically correct on the historical application of 2nd (until recently), but this is the one place they had a very odd stance that didn't make much sense. When you are for liberty in its purists sense that support should not be constrained by historical applications that restricted liberty.

The founder of the ACLU was a communist. That's not hyperbole, that's in their brochure in their office. It's not a surprise that rights since 1791 are not held in high regard. How else to reform notions of property rights, among other things. That said, the ACLU is great with speech and privacy issues, but not others, IMO.

 

[rockaction]

I don't believe the story about the ACLU displaying a bill of rights with missing amendments.

Truth. I was there and asked. Like I said, it could have been a different color (the text) or based on incorporation, but I remember asking about those things.

Pittsburgh, 1995-1996.

eta* I like the ACLU and worked there for a month or two as an intern. I have no reason to deliberately lie nor mislead. I also had fun while I was there, and really liked the people I interned for.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't believe the story about the ACLU displaying a bill of rights with missing amendments.

Truth. I was there and asked. Like I said, it could have been a different color or based on incorporation, but I remember asking. Pittsburgh, 1995-1996.

Was the third amendment on there?

 

[rockaction]

Here is something about the ACLU and the Second Amendment. There's no surprise it would either be in different text or completely omitted from their office wall in their own published BoR.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=307

 

[rockaction]

I don't believe the story about the ACLU displaying a bill of rights with missing amendments.

Truth. I was there and asked. Like I said, it could have been a different color or based on incorporation, but I remember asking. Pittsburgh, 1995-1996.

Was the third amendment on there?

Yes. Quartering soldiers would not be something they'd take an official position against. At all.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Here is something about the ACLU and the Second Amendment. There's no surprise it would either be in different text or completely omitted from their office wall in their own published BoR.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=307

I am familiar with the argument about the ACLU and the second amendment. I am still skeptical of your story.

 

[rockaction]

Here is something about the ACLU and the Second Amendment. There's no surprise it would either be in different text or completely omitted from their office wall in their own published BoR.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=307

I am familiar with the argument about the ACLU and the second amendment. I am still skeptical of your story.

Fair enough. Something prompted me, while looking up at their BoR, to ask about it. And I wasn't a gun rights guy at the time, so it's not too far off. Maybe my memory fails me. The look on the guy's face was one of chagrin, though. Think about it: Does it make sense for them to emphasize the Second or Ninth? I'm only hesitant to double down because memory is a tricky thing, I'm a contrarian, and their official site lists the full Amendments right now. I'm still pretty sure there was something definitely up for me to ask, knowing it would probably piss them off for an intern to do so. I'm also pretty sure it was omitted or completely textually de-emphasized.

 

[Joe Summer]

The founder of the ACLU was a communist. That's not hyperbole, that's in their brochure in their office.

http://www.aclu.org/faqs#3_4"That's not hyperbole, it's false."

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Think about it: Does it make sense for them to emphasize the Second or Ninth? ...

How can you advocate for liberty and believe that the handful of rights listed in the first 8 amendments are all the freedoms we have?

... I'm still pretty sure there was something definitely up for me to ask, knowing it would probably piss them off for an intern to do so. ...

This makes zero sense.

 

[rockaction]

Bull####. Uh, it was in their brochure in the nineties. Roger Baldwin was an admitted reformed Communist, IIRC.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1579

 

[rockaction]

That's the first thing that comes up in a Google search. What they won't admit now, they admitted then. Too bad if PR has changed. I don't really care.

 

[rockaction]

Think about it: Does it make sense for them to emphasize the Second or Ninth? ...

How can you advocate for liberty and believe that the handful of rights listed in the first 8 amendments are all the freedoms we have?

>... I'm still pretty sure there was something definitely up for me to ask, knowing it would probably piss them off for an intern to do so. ...

This makes zero sense.

Easy. You don't agree with private property and you start off with the concern of free speech for anti-war anarcho-communists in WWI, like Eugene Debs. Organizations grow in scope.

 

[rockaction]

And BS again. From Baldwin's Wiki page: "In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Originally, at the beginning of the ACLU, he had said, "Communism, of course, is the goal."

 

[rockaction]

Look, I read it in their own office. They admitted it in the nineties. I don't care about their bureaucratic FAQ's now.

 

[rockaction]

Think about it: Does it make sense for them to emphasize the Second or Ninth? ...

How can you advocate for liberty and believe that the handful of rights listed in the first 8 amendments are all the freedoms we have?

>... I'm still pretty sure there was something definitely up for me to ask, knowing it would probably piss them off for an intern to do so. ...

This makes zero sense.

They don't. They only advocate for freedoms that fall under the goals of the traditional left.

"This makes zero sense" Why?

Look, lefties on this board gonna dislike me. I'm just telling you what went on when I worked there, with no real agenda behind it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The founder of the ACLU was a communist. That's not hyperbole, that's in their brochure in their office. It's not a surprise that rights since 1791 are not held in high regard. How else to reform notions of property rights, among other things. That said, the ACLU is great with speech and privacy issues, but not others, IMO.

When you say you intern at the ACLU does that mean you were on the janitorial staff?

You are the one, without any real evidence and with rapidly diminishing credibility that stated that the 9th amendment was omitted from the ACLU's version of the bill of right. I said that the existence of the ninth amendment that has existed since 1791 would be news to the courts. You said not at all look at a Griswold. Which I pointed out only reinforces my point. I then speculated on how the ACLU might not be fond of the 10th, since like the 2nd (in the ACLU's wrong historic view) it is not an individual right but a collective one. So you reply of course the ACLU would be opposed of the 9th because it was founded by communists. That (if it were even true) is relevant how?

 

[Joe Summer]

And BS again. From Baldwin's Wiki page: "In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Originally, at the beginning of the ACLU, he had said, "Communism, of course, is the goal."

"communism is the goal" is not the same thing as "was a communist".You do understand that.......don't you?

 

[rockaction]

Should I list every communist organization Ro

The founder of the ACLU was a communist. That's not hyperbole, that's in their brochure in their office. It's not a surprise that rights since 1791 are not held in high regard. How else to reform notions of property rights, among other things. That said, the ACLU is great with speech and privacy issues, but not others, IMO.

When you say you intern at the ACLU does that mean you were on the janitorial staff?

You are the one, without any real evidence and with rapidly diminishing credibility that stated that the 9th amendment was omitted from the ACLU's version of the bill of right. I said that the existence of the ninth amendment that has existed since 1791 would be news to the courts news to the courts. You said not at all look at a Griswold. Which I pointed out only reinforces by point. I then speculated on how the ACLU might not be fond of the 10th, since like the 2nd (in the ACLU's wrong historic view) it is not an individual right but a collective one. So you reply of course the ACLU would be opposed of the 9th because it was founded by communists. That (if it were even true) is relevant how?

Leaving private property to natural rights theory, which would have been covered under the Ninth Amendment? Look, I don't care what they say about Baldwin now, they used to admit it.

Roger Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, once said, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

 

[Joe Summer]

Look, I read it in their own office. They admitted it in the nineties. I don't care about their bureaucratic FAQ's now.

And yet you've provided no real evidence to back up your claim that Baldwin was actually a communist. If the ACLU "admitted" it in the '90s, you would think that the evidence would be plentiful. It's not like the internet was invented in 2000.

 

[rockaction]

And BS again. From Baldwin's Wiki page: "In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Originally, at the beginning of the ACLU, he had said, "Communism, of course, is the goal."

"communism is the goal" is not the same thing as "was a communist".You do understand that.......don't you?

And by those quotes, the ACLU used to admit he was a communist, which they don't now. Too bad. Not my fault they changed their official PR position.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Think about it: Does it make sense for them to emphasize the Second or Ninth? ...

How can you advocate for liberty and believe that the handful of rights listed in the first 8 amendments are all the freedoms we have?

>... I'm still pretty sure there was something definitely up for me to ask, knowing it would probably piss them off for an intern to do so. &nb

sp;...

This makes zero sense.

They don't. They only advocate for freedoms that fall under the goals of the traditional left.

"This makes zero sense" Why?

Look, lefties on this board gonna dislike me. I'm just telling you what went on when I worked there, with no real agenda behind it.

Nope lefties are loving you right now. Righties on this board are the ones that are gonna wish you would shut up.

It makes zero sense that an organization that is taking on interns are going to be upset when an intern asks about their mission.

And "liberal" is a philosophy founded on "liberty" and "equality". Liberty is the very heart of the ninth amendment. As for property rights.

 

[rockaction]

I'll just quote this again:

Roger Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, once said, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

I'm not hunting down a handbook from the nineties. Pissed off as you may be, if you think about it for a minute, the reason the top libertarian legal intellectual - Randy Barnett - is the biggest expert and advocate on the Ninth Amendment is precisely because of property rights. You're confusing a group with "liberty" in their name with a group that advocates a traditional classic liberal position. The ACLU is not that, hence the debate about them.

And the righties might hate that I have to do this from memory, but any reasonable investigation will probably find more intellectual fidelity on my part than any naysayer.

 

[otello]

This thread is staying nicely on topic.

 

[Joe Summer]

I'll just quote this again:

Roger Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, once said, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

I'm not hunting down a handbook from the nineties. Pissed off as you may be, if you think about it for a minute, the reason the top libertarian legal intellectual - Randy Barnett - is the biggest expert and advocate on the Ninth Amendment is precisely because of property rights. You're confusing a group with "liberty" in their name with a group that advocates a traditional classic liberal position. The ACLU is not that, hence the debate about them.

And the righties might hate that I have to do this from memory, but any reasonable investigation will probably find more intellectual fidelity on my part than any naysayer.

Nothing in that quote confirms that Baldwin was actually a communist.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

This went right where rockaction wanted it to go from the onset of his postings.

 

[rockaction]

This thread is staying nicely on topic.

Yes, it's becoming about what I read at the ACLU. My apologies. I'm still not lying, and I'm stickin' by it. Best of my memory, they specifically admitted Baldwin was a communist, and the BoR was sorely lacking. Sorry if people are skeptical about my experience, which is always tough to believe.

 

[rockaction]

This went right where rockaction wanted it to go from the onset of his postings.

Nope. I laughed about it and added an anecdote. People got worked up and questioned my experience. Seriously, man. I have to defend my own experience here.

* I feel like I have less to lose relating these stories than the ACLU's has regarding their official PR statements about Roger Baldwin

 

[BigSteelThrill]

This went right where rockaction wanted it to go from the onset of his postings.

Nope. I laughed about it and added an anecdote. People got worked up and questioned my experience. Seriously, man. I have to defend my own experience here.

 

[rockaction]

This went right where rockaction wanted it to go from the onset of his postings.

Nope. I laughed about it and added an anecdote. People got worked up and questioned my experience. Seriously, man. I have to defend my own experience here.

Dude, it was one anecdote about the BoR. Seriously.

*I actually thought everybody talking about the ACLU was kind of a non-sequiter. I'm seriously laughing about this.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Its a simple understanding... on internet forums, anecdotes are taboo if trying to seriously discuss something that has differing facets.

And this thread was having a serious discussion. Yet you went all Michelle Bachman on everyone.

 

[rockaction]

Its a simple understanding... on internet forums, anecdotes are taboo if trying to seriously discuss something that has differing facets.

And this thread was having a serious discussion. Yet you went all Michelle Bachman on everyone.

Ah, yes, simple. Nothing like discussion without anecdotal stories. Michelle Bachman? Ah, yeah, that's me. Totally, man.

*it's a simple understanding. The first thing you go to - a stranger's motive. On internet forums, motive is perfect. Just sling it at someone. Congrats. You went all Perry Mason on me. Only problem is, nobody on the stand is breaking down and crying.

eta2* Also, who has an agenda? My quote is 'studs and duds'. Yours is completely political. And anecdotal, no less. This is frigging hilarious, dude. Was I supposed to write a grad school paper on this ####? Oh, man.

 

[oso diablo]

My impression is that federal employees act in a far less partisan manner than they did many years ago when the federal government was smaller. I don't see why this unfortunate incident requires us to stop regulation.

Ah, head-winds vs. tail-winds, with a little strawman thrown in.

Well I don't understand what IK's point was then.

I'll have to let oso flesh out that response. I don't think I got it.

it strikes me as axiomatic that a larger government would be a more powerful government. And that a more powerful government would act in a more partisan manner. my sense was that fgialc felt otherwise because the political winds are currently blowing his way, and he likely doesn't notice it as much. This story makes an odd place for his sentiment, given that it highlights the stenchy wind.

The strawman reference was to his comment about stopping regulation - a frequent canard from the left about the right's political viewpoints.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This thread is staying nicely on topic.

The commies at the ACLU spoke out strongly against the IRS' actions so this whole issue must be a just a bunch of nonsense.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

it strikes me as axiomatic that a larger government would be a more powerful government. And that a more powerful government would act in a more partisan manner. my sense was that fgialc felt otherwise because the political winds are currently blowing his way, and he likely doesn't notice it as much. This story makes an odd place for his sentiment, given that it highlights the stenchy wind. The strawman reference was to his comment about stopping regulation - a frequent canard from the left about the right's political viewpoints.

My comment didn't really have to do with political winds. Back 100 years ago before stuff like the Hatch Act and competitive bidding laws EVERYTHING was partisan. It's still like that in a lot of countries in the world. If you want a civil service job or a government contract or anything, you have to kowtow and pay off the party in power. it isn't like that here anymore. Yeah, there's still corruption and scandals, but the pervasiveness has diminished a lot. I view it as one of the great successes of our governance. And it has happened despite the fact that the federal government has grown a lot since then.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

it strikes me as axiomatic that a larger government would be a more powerful government. And that a more powerful government would act in a more partisan manner. ...

Wouldn't a larger government have a larger ratio of permanent to patronage employees? Shouldn't the mix of a large number of permanent employees create a diversity in political beliefs that would diminish ("water down") partisanship of the execution of government?

Though I'm still not so sure that this partisanship at all. Maybe it was partisanship in how it was responded to (such as the NYT's article), but I think it was just a combination of lazy and picking on those that don't like "you and your profession".

 

[rockaction]

it strikes me as axiomatic that a larger government would be a more powerful government. And that a more powerful government would act in a more partisan manner. ...

Wouldn't a larger government have a larger ratio of permanent to patronage employees? Shouldn't the mix of a large number of permanent employees create a diversity in political beliefs that would diminish ("water down") partisanship of the execution of government?

Though I'm still not so sure that this partisanship at all. Maybe it was partisanship in how it was responded to (such as the NYT's article), but I think it was just a combination of lazy and picking on those that don't like "you and your profession".

Isn't that inherently political when it comes to the IRS?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

it strikes me as axiomatic that a larger government would be a more powerful government. And that a more powerful government would act in a more partisan manner. ...

Wouldn't a larger government have a larger ratio of permanent to patronage employees? Shouldn't the mix of a large number of permanent employees create a diversity in political beliefs that would diminish ("water down") partisanship of the execution of government?

Though I'm still not so sure that this partisanship at all. Maybe it was partisanship in how it was responded to (such as the NYT's article), but I think it was just a combination of lazy and picking on those that don't like "you and your profession".

Isn't that inherently political when it comes to the IRS?

I'm not sure what you are asking?

Was the motivation left v. right? Or, was the motivation us v. them? Or, was it simply that the groups that were targeted were the ones in the news when the flood of application started triggering that the short cuts be devised?

Do you know the political makeup of the employees of that IRS office?

 

[rockaction]

Right vs. left, in this case. That the Tea Party groups are the ones opposed to "you and your profession," which is an inherently political profession. I don't think anyone will deny that the IRS's biggest backers come from the left and those in favor of progressive taxation.

No, I do not know the political makeup of that IRS office, which is a good point. But the real scandal is that an entity in the executive branch acted in a partisan fashion under the aegis of an organization that is supposed to be exclusively executory, that is, politically neutral and simply enforcement-based. And that's the scandal. That the executory function of the IRS was corrupted in a way that became inherently selective and political. And that it was targeted at groups whose political beliefs are essentially anathema to their mission.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Right vs. left, in this case. That the Tea Party groups are the ones opposed to "you and your profession," which is an inherently political profession. I don't think anyone will deny that the IRS's biggest backers come from the left and those in favor of progressive taxation.

No, I do not know the political makeup of that IRS office, which is a good point. But the real scandal is that an entity in the executive branch acted in a partisan fashion under the aegis of an organization that is supposed to be exclusively executory, that is, politically neutral and simply enforcement-based. And that's the scandal. That the executory function of the IRS was corrupted in a way that became inherently selective and political. And that it was targeted at groups whose political beliefs are essentially anathema to their mission.

Is the last sentence "And that it was targeted at groups whose political beliefs are essentially anathema to their mission" dependent on the first two "Right vs. left, in this case. That the Tea Party groups are the ones opposed to ;you and your profession'"? Or can that last sentence be true all on its own?

 

[rockaction]

That the Tea Party groups, in this case, are anathema to the IRS's mission, which may have caused the enforcement to be dictated by politics rather than tax enforcement.