The IRS controversy is quickly unraveling. (1 Viewer)

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/10/.UbXhitgWBUM.reddit

On "Fox News Sunday," Bill Kristol and Mary Matalin urged their Republican allies to keep their eye on the ball: the right shouldn't complain about the NSA revelations, they said, but should instead remain focused on the IRS controversy.

There is, however, one serious problem with this advice: the IRS controversy is quickly unraveling.

A self-described conservative Republican who is a manager in the Internal Revenue Service office that targeted tea party groups told investigators that he, not the White House, set the review in motion, the top Democrat on the House watchdog committee said Sunday.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., released a partial transcript of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform interview with the unnamed manager in the IRS' Cincinnati office. In it, the employee said the extra scrutiny for tea party groups' tax exempt status was an effort to be consistent in reviewing applications and not driven by politics.

"He is a conservative Republican working for the IRS. I think this interview and these statements go a long way to what's showing that the White House was not involved in this," Cummings said.

Cummings, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, added, "Based upon everything I've seen, the case is solved. And if it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on, to be frank with you."

You'll recall that Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) released carefully edited partial transcripts of interviews with IRS employees, in the hopes keeping interest in the story alive. Asked to release full transcripts, so the public could see the context of the exchanges,Issa refused.

And now we're starting to get a batter sense as to why Issa preferred to keep all of the facts out of the public light.

Cummings has seen the interviews, and has seen the conservative Republican official in the IRS explain that allegations of White House wrongdoing are baseless, which only reinforces the impression that this "scandal" is quickly turning into a nothingburger.

For the record, neither Cummings nor Issa have released the transcripts of the interviews with the IRS employees, but unlike Issa, Cummings is eager to do so. Indeed, the Maryland Democrat said yesterday he will release the full transcripts to the media within the week unless Issa makes the disclosures himself.

 

[Clifford]

Oh well that solves everything. So they are reverting back to the lone gunman theory after admitting openly that the problem went back to Washington? Also, the source you are quoting wouldn't say a bad thing about this admin if they were caught sacrificing children on the White House lawn.

 

[Spiderman]

[SIZE=11pt]Pretty ridiculous. They were trying to force all Conservative donors to pay gift taxes on donations, but not Liberal donors. They were asking for people's prayer meeting notes. For their donor lists. They were illegally (felony illegal) giving out people's personal tax information to liberal groups and organizations, including an organization that was headed up by Obama's 2012 Campaign co-chair. Literally everyone around Obama knew about this, but Obama did not? That is becoming a more and more unreasonable assumption with each passing day. Lois Lerner reportedly told one guy that she would only stop auditing and charging him repeatedly with petty crimes (all of which were dropped in court, but cost significant legal fees for the defending party), if he either paid an enormous sum of money in fines without being found guilty of what she was trying to charge him with or if he promised to never run for political office again. Another felony.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]We are starting to talk about dozens and dozens of felonies piling up. This scandal is going to drag on for 12-18 months, will continue to devastate Obama's second term, will prevent him from getting anything done unless he decides to go in and clean house of these people, which he has shown no sign of doing at this point.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As Evan Bayh said, Presidents in second terms have the first half of their second term to get things done, and then they move into lame duck status for the rest of their 2nd term. Obama's scandals are burning up all of the remaining currency he has left at an alarming rate and running the risk that this IRS scandal gets hooked to him and his Administration and could cause major deterioration in the 2014 elections in the mid-term.[/SIZE]

 

[timschochet]

[SIZE=11pt]Pretty ridiculous. They were trying to force all Conservative donors to pay gift taxes on donations, but not Liberal donors. They were asking for people's prayer meeting notes. For their donor lists. They were illegally (felony illegal) giving out people's personal tax information to liberal groups and organizations, including an organization that was headed up by Obama's 2012 Campaign co-chair. Literally everyone around Obama knew about this, but Obama did not? That is becoming a more and more unreasonable assumption with each passing day. Lois Lerner reportedly told one guy that she would only stop auditing and charging him repeatedly with petty crimes (all of which were dropped in court, but cost significant legal fees for the defending party), if he either paid an enormous sum of money in fines without being found guilty of what she was trying to charge him with or if he promised to never run for political office again. Another felony.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]We are starting to talk about dozens and dozens of felonies piling up. This scandal is going to drag on for 12-18 months, will continue to devastate Obama's second term, will prevent him from getting anything done unless he decides to go in and clean house of these people, which he has shown no sign of doing at this point.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As Evan Bayh said, Presidents in second terms have the first half of their second term to get things done, and then they move into lame duck status for the rest of their 2nd term. Obama's scandals are burning up all of the remaining currency he has left at an alarming rate and running the risk that this IRS scandal gets hooked to him and his Administration and could cause major deterioration in the 2014 elections in the mid-term.[/SIZE]

Reading this post, and reading the OP, it's like you guys are living on two different planets.

Look, everything you wrote here is pretty much irrelevant. The only thing that makes this a scandal is if (a) it was politically motivated and (b) if Obama knew about it. If the OP is correct that this was orchestrated by a conservative Republican, then both of these points are extremely doubtful.

 

[MaxThreshold]

[SIZE=11pt]Pretty ridiculous. They were trying to force all Conservative donors to pay gift taxes on donations, but not Liberal donors. They were asking for people's prayer meeting notes. For their donor lists. They were illegally (felony illegal) giving out people's personal tax information to liberal groups and organizations, including an organization that was headed up by Obama's 2012 Campaign co-chair. Literally everyone around Obama knew about this, but Obama did not? That is becoming a more and more unreasonable assumption with each passing day. Lois Lerner reportedly told one guy that she would only stop auditing and charging him repeatedly with petty crimes (all of which were dropped in court, but cost significant legal fees for the defending party), if he either paid an enormous sum of money in fines without being found guilty of what she was trying to charge him with or if he promised to never run for political office again. Another felony.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]We are starting to talk about dozens and dozens of felonies piling up. This scandal is going to drag on for 12-18 months, will continue to devastate Obama's second term, will prevent him from getting anything done unless he decides to go in and clean house of these people, which he has shown no sign of doing at this point.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As Evan Bayh said, Presidents in second terms have the first half of their second term to get things done, and then they move into lame duck status for the rest of their 2nd term. Obama's scandals are burning up all of the remaining currency he has left at an alarming rate and running the risk that this IRS scandal gets hooked to him and his Administration and could cause major deterioration in the 2014 elections in the mid-term.[/SIZE]

Reading this post, and reading the OP, it's like you guys are living on two different planets.

Look, everything you wrote here is pretty much irrelevant. The only thing that makes this a scandal is if (a) it was politically motivated and (b) if Obama knew about it. If the OP is correct that this was orchestrated by a conservative Republican, then both of these points are extremely doubtful.

Pretty sure FSM works directly for the White House with the way he carries water for the Administration.

Oh well that solves everything. So they are reverting back to the lone gunman theory after admitting openly that the problem went back to Washington? Also, the source you are quoting wouldn't say a bad thing about this admin if they were caught sacrificing children on the White House lawn.

 

[jon_mx]

[SIZE=11pt]Pretty ridiculous. They were trying to force all Conservative donors to pay gift taxes on donations, but not Liberal donors. They were asking for people's prayer meeting notes. For their donor lists. They were illegally (felony illegal) giving out people's personal tax information to liberal groups and organizations, including an organization that was headed up by Obama's 2012 Campaign co-chair. Literally everyone around Obama knew about this, but Obama did not? That is becoming a more and more unreasonable assumption with each passing day. Lois Lerner reportedly told one guy that she would only stop auditing and charging him repeatedly with petty crimes (all of which were dropped in court, but cost significant legal fees for the defending party), if he either paid an enormous sum of money in fines without being found guilty of what she was trying to charge him with or if he promised to never run for political office again. Another felony.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]We are starting to talk about dozens and dozens of felonies piling up. This scandal is going to drag on for 12-18 months, will continue to devastate Obama's second term, will prevent him from getting anything done unless he decides to go in and clean house of these people, which he has shown no sign of doing at this point.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As Evan Bayh said, Presidents in second terms have the first half of their second term to get things done, and then they move into lame duck status for the rest of their 2nd term. Obama's scandals are burning up all of the remaining currency he has left at an alarming rate and running the risk that this IRS scandal gets hooked to him and his Administration and could cause major deterioration in the 2014 elections in the mid-term.[/SIZE]

Reading this post, and reading the OP, it's like you guys are living on two different planets.

Look, everything you wrote here is pretty much irrelevant. The only thing that makes this a scandal is if (a) it was politically motivated and (b) if Obama knew about it. If the OP is correct that this was orchestrated by a conservative Republican, then both of these points are extremely doubtful.

It is a serious scandal whether Obama knew about it or not. Everyone with knowledge needs to be exposed and punished. This is a very serious abuse of powers. It probably did not go all the way up to Obama, but whoever had involvement needs to be rooted out.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Pretty ridiculous. They were trying to force all Conservative donors to pay gift taxes on donations, but not Liberal donors. They were asking for people's prayer meeting notes. For their donor lists. They were illegally (felony illegal) giving out people's personal tax information to liberal groups and organizations, including an organization that was headed up by Obama's 2012 Campaign co-chair. Literally everyone around Obama knew about this, but Obama did not? That is becoming a more and more unreasonable assumption with each passing day. Lois Lerner reportedly told one guy that she would only stop auditing and charging him repeatedly with petty crimes (all of which were dropped in court, but cost significant legal fees for the defending party), if he either paid an enormous sum of money in fines without being found guilty of what she was trying to charge him with or if he promised to never run for political office again. Another felony.

We are starting to talk about dozens and dozens of felonies piling up. This scandal is going to drag on for 12-18 months, will continue to devastate Obama's second term, will prevent him from getting anything done unless he decides to go in and clean house of these people, which he has shown no sign of doing at this point.

As Evan Bayh said, Presidents in second terms have the first half of their second term to get things done, and then they move into lame duck status for the rest of their 2nd term. Obama's scandals are burning up all of the remaining currency he has left at an alarming rate and running the risk that this IRS scandal gets hooked to him and his Administration and could cause major deterioration in the 2014 elections in the mid-term.

Reading this post, and reading the OP, it's like you guys are living on two different planets.Look, everything you wrote here is pretty much irrelevant. The only thing that makes this a scandal is if (a) it was politically motivated and (b) if Obama knew about it. If the OP is correct that this was orchestrated by a conservative Republican, then both of these points are extremely doubtful.

You should keep an open mind Tim, and try not to see just what you want to see. If someone high-up in the administration knew about this it would be quite damaging to Obama, as would Obama's behavior once he found out.

 

[Rich Conway]

[SIZE=11pt]Pretty ridiculous. They were trying to force all Conservative donors to pay gift taxes on donations, but not Liberal donors. They were asking for people's prayer meeting notes. For their donor lists. They were illegally (felony illegal) giving out people's personal tax information to liberal groups and organizations, including an organization that was headed up by Obama's 2012 Campaign co-chair. Literally everyone around Obama knew about this, but Obama did not? That is becoming a more and more unreasonable assumption with each passing day. Lois Lerner reportedly told one guy that she would only stop auditing and charging him repeatedly with petty crimes (all of which were dropped in court, but cost significant legal fees for the defending party), if he either paid an enormous sum of money in fines without being found guilty of what she was trying to charge him with or if he promised to never run for political office again. Another felony.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]We are starting to talk about dozens and dozens of felonies piling up. This scandal is going to drag on for 12-18 months, will continue to devastate Obama's second term, will prevent him from getting anything done unless he decides to go in and clean house of these people, which he has shown no sign of doing at this point.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As Evan Bayh said, Presidents in second terms have the first half of their second term to get things done, and then they move into lame duck status for the rest of their 2nd term. Obama's scandals are burning up all of the remaining currency he has left at an alarming rate and running the risk that this IRS scandal gets hooked to him and his Administration and could cause major deterioration in the 2014 elections in the mid-term.[/SIZE]

Reading this post, and reading the OP, it's like you guys are living on two different planets.

Look, everything you wrote here is pretty much irrelevant. The only thing that makes this a scandal is if (a) it was politically motivated and (b) if Obama knew about it. If the OP is correct that this was orchestrated by a conservative Republican, then both of these points are extremely doubtful.

It may require Obama or someone else high up in order for this to be a scandal that should affect our views on him, but government employees abusing power, for any reason, at any level, is always a scandal.

 

[timschochet]

[SIZE=11pt]Pretty ridiculous. They were trying to force all Conservative donors to pay gift taxes on donations, but not Liberal donors. They were asking for people's prayer meeting notes. For their donor lists. They were illegally (felony illegal) giving out people's personal tax information to liberal groups and organizations, including an organization that was headed up by Obama's 2012 Campaign co-chair. Literally everyone around Obama knew about this, but Obama did not? That is becoming a more and more unreasonable assumption with each passing day. Lois Lerner reportedly told one guy that she would only stop auditing and charging him repeatedly with petty crimes (all of which were dropped in court, but cost significant legal fees for the defending party), if he either paid an enormous sum of money in fines without being found guilty of what she was trying to charge him with or if he promised to never run for political office again. Another felony.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]We are starting to talk about dozens and dozens of felonies piling up. This scandal is going to drag on for 12-18 months, will continue to devastate Obama's second term, will prevent him from getting anything done unless he decides to go in and clean house of these people, which he has shown no sign of doing at this point.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As Evan Bayh said, Presidents in second terms have the first half of their second term to get things done, and then they move into lame duck status for the rest of their 2nd term. Obama's scandals are burning up all of the remaining currency he has left at an alarming rate and running the risk that this IRS scandal gets hooked to him and his Administration and could cause major deterioration in the 2014 elections in the mid-term.[/SIZE]

Reading this post, and reading the OP, it's like you guys are living on two different planets.

Look, everything you wrote here is pretty much irrelevant. The only thing that makes this a scandal is if (a) it was politically motivated and (b) if Obama knew about it. If the OP is correct that this was orchestrated by a conservative Republican, then both of these points are extremely doubtful.

It may require Obama or someone else high up in order for this to be a scandal that should affect our views on him, but government employees abusing power, for any reason, at any level, is always a scandal.

Well I agree with that. I was specifically replying to Spiderman's post.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

"Plausible deniability"

 

[NCCommish]

Here's what gets me. There were 300 apps that picked up additional scrutiny. Of those 75 were TP type orgs. The same orgs the GOP had been badgering the IRS to check more closely by the way. Of all the additional scrutiny done only 2 organizations lost their status. They were liberal organizations.

Initially this looked really bad. It looked like it was targeted at certain political groups. It wasn't. It was targeted to try to stop people from abusing tax exempt status and using it to bankroll campaigns for their preferred candidate. This is what the IRS is supposed to do. It's their job. And it was a self described conservative Republican that got the ball rolling while a conservative Republican was in charge of the IRS. I'd say it's time for the right to slowly walk away and look for another Watergate to try to gin up.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Lesson for the Right: Take it ( ) down a notch.

Lesson for the Left: Yes, people think it's possible you'd do such a thing.

 

[Mr Non Sequitur]

The New York Times wrote that the Obama administration has lost all credibility. I didn't write that, they did and since they are one of the biggest Liberal publications in the entire country besides being one of the most read newspapers on the planet, it's very telling. You can laugh it off or try and tear it down but it only makes you look more foolish defending Obama and the White House and frankly makes you lose board credibility.

 

[roadkill1292]

The New York Times wrote that the Obama administration has lost all credibility. I didn't write that, they did and since they are one of the biggest Liberal publications in the entire country besides being one of the most read newspapers on the planet, it's very telling. You can laugh it off or try and tear it down but it only makes you look more foolish defending Obama and the White House and frankly makes you lose board credibility.

This isn't a very good thought process.

 

[NCCommish]

Lesson for the Right: Take it ( ) down a notch.

Lesson for the Left: Yes, people think it's possible you'd do such a thing.

I wouldn't say so much Left and Right. I'd say Democrat and Republican.

I won't speak for conservatives and their view on the GOP but I will say I don't consider the Democrats as the left. At least not very many of them and certainly no one in a position of real power.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Lesson for the Right: Take it ( ) down a notch.

Lesson for the Left: Yes, people think it's possible you'd do such a thing.

I wouldn't say so much Left and Right. I'd say Democrat and Republican.

I won't speak for conservatives and their view on the GOP but I will say I don't consider the Democrats as the left. At least not very many of them and certainly no one in a position of real power.

I can live with that.

 

[NCCommish]

Lesson for the Right: Take it ( ) down a notch.

Lesson for the Left: Yes, people think it's possible you'd do such a thing.

I wouldn't say so much Left and Right. I'd say Democrat and Republican.

I won't speak for conservatives and their view on the GOP but I will say I don't consider the Democrats as the left. At least not very many of them and certainly no one in a position of real power.

I can live with that.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Here's what gets me. There were 300 apps that picked up additional scrutiny. Of those 75 were TP type orgs. The same orgs the GOP had been badgering the IRS to check more closely by the way. Of all the additional scrutiny done only 2 organizations lost their status. They were liberal organizations.

Initially this looked really bad. It looked like it was targeted at certain political groups. It wasn't. It was targeted to try to stop people from abusing tax exempt status and using it to bankroll campaigns for their preferred candidate. This is what the IRS is supposed to do. It's their job. And it was a self described conservative Republican that got the ball rolling while a conservative Republican was in charge of the IRS. I'd say it's time for the right to slowly walk away and look for another Watergate to try to gin up.

My point exactly.

 

[Rayderr]

Here's what gets me. There were 300 apps that picked up additional scrutiny. Of those 75 were TP type orgs. The same orgs the GOP had been badgering the IRS to check more closely by the way. Of all the additional scrutiny done only 2 organizations lost their status. They were liberal organizations.

Initially this looked really bad. It looked like it was targeted at certain political groups. It wasn't. It was targeted to try to stop people from abusing tax exempt status and using it to bankroll campaigns for their preferred candidate. This is what the IRS is supposed to do. It's their job. And it was a self described conservative Republican that got the ball rolling while a conservative Republican was in charge of the IRS. I'd say it's time for the right to slowly walk away and look for another Watergate to try to gin up.

Beginning in March 2010, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under Section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names.[34] These words were generally associated with the political right in the US, an ideological screen. In May 2010, some employees of the "Determinations Unit" of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the "Be On the Look Out" list.

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes. Eventually, IRS employees in at least Cincinnati, Ohio; El Monte, California; Laguna Niguel, California; and Washington, D.C.[35] applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:[36][37][38]

• referenced words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12 Project" in the case file;
• outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;
• involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";
• had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;
• advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;
• were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — known by many as Obamacare;
• questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501©(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period,[Note 2] only 4 were approved.[40] During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive," "progress," "liberal," or "equality."[40][41] (However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])

 

[Mr Non Sequitur]

The New York Times wrote that the Obama administration has lost all credibility. I didn't write that, they did and since they are one of the biggest Liberal publications in the entire country besides being one of the most read newspapers on the planet, it's very telling. You can laugh it off or try and tear it down but it only makes you look more foolish defending Obama and the White House and frankly makes you lose board credibility.

This isn't a very good thought process.

What are you hoping to gain? It added nothing to refute what was written, just an attempt to insult me as a poster or to question my intelligence. Always a sure sign that the position from the opposing poster is shaky at best.

This thread was started for no reason other than the OP wanting to try and stir the pot. You can't take someone seriously when their ammo is something like "just go away" which is exactly what the Obama administration is wanting/hoping. You could say what you wrote about any post in here if you want to.

Now I would agree it is simplistic but I have no love for either party, you obviously vote left. To use a quote or source that leans heavily to the very party that is under scrutiny is usually thought of in scholarly circles as an intelligent way to prove one's point. You however say otherwise so we'll just agree to disagree, have a good one bud.

 

[tri-man 47]

Here's what gets me. There were 300 apps that picked up additional scrutiny. Of those 75 were TP type orgs. The same orgs the GOP had been badgering the IRS to check more closely by the way. Of all the additional scrutiny done only 2 organizations lost their status. They were liberal organizations.

Initially this looked really bad. It looked like it was targeted at certain political groups. It wasn't. It was targeted to try to stop people from abusing tax exempt status and using it to bankroll campaigns for their preferred candidate. This is what the IRS is supposed to do. It's their job. And it was a self described conservative Republican that got the ball rolling while a conservative Republican was in charge of the IRS. I'd say it's time for the right to slowly walk away and look for another Watergate to try to gin up.

The topic of 501©(4) organizations came up in a lunch meeting yesterday with the partner from the audit firm we use. He commented on the possibility of doing away with that status ...it basically allows too much abuse.

That said: It all still looks bad that Obama was going on and on about his 'enemies' and all the 'foreign-controlled' organizations around the time that the IRS actions were starting to occur. As with any control environment, it starts with the tone at the top.

 

[Mr Non Sequitur]

Lesson for the Right: Take it ( ) down a notch.

Lesson for the Left: Yes, people think it's possible you'd do such a thing.

I wouldn't say so much Left and Right. I'd say Democrat and Republican.

I won't speak for conservatives and their view on the GOP but I will say I don't consider the Democrats as the left. At least not very many of them and certainly no one in a position of real power.

So why are you not critical of Obama and the White House? I'm just asking not trying to wage WW III over it.

 

[roadkill1292]

The New York Times wrote that the Obama administration has lost all credibility. I didn't write that, they did and since they are one of the biggest Liberal publications in the entire country besides being one of the most read newspapers on the planet, it's very telling. You can laugh it off or try and tear it down but it only makes you look more foolish defending Obama and the White House and frankly makes you lose board credibility.

This isn't a very good thought process.

What are you hoping to gain? It added nothing to refute what was written, just an attempt to insult me as a poster or to question my intelligence. Always a sure sign that the position from the opposing poster is shaky at best.

This thread was started for no reason other than the OP wanting to try and stir the pot. You can't take someone seriously when their ammo is something like "just go away" which is exactly what the Obama administration is wanting/hoping. You could say what you wrote about any post in here if you want to.

Now I would agree it is simplistic but I have no love for either party, you obviously vote left. To use a quote or source that leans heavily to the very party that is under scrutiny is usually thought of in scholarly circles as an intelligent way to prove one's point. You however say otherwise so we'll just agree to disagree, have a good one bud.

I'm hoping to stop yet another dumb partisan from posting anymore.

 

[jonessed]

Here's what gets me. There were 300 apps that picked up additional scrutiny. Of those 75 were TP type orgs. The same orgs the GOP had been badgering the IRS to check more closely by the way. Of all the additional scrutiny done only 2 organizations lost their status. They were liberal organizations.

Initially this looked really bad. It looked like it was targeted at certain political groups. It wasn't. It was targeted to try to stop people from abusing tax exempt status and using it to bankroll campaigns for their preferred candidate. This is what the IRS is supposed to do. It's their job. And it was a self described conservative Republican that got the ball rolling while a conservative Republican was in charge of the IRS. I'd say it's time for the right to slowly walk away and look for another Watergate to try to gin up.

Beginning in March 2010, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under Section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names.[34] These words were generally associated with the political right in the US, an ideological screen. In May 2010, some employees of the "Determinations Unit" of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the "Be On the Look Out" list.

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes. Eventually, IRS employees in at least Cincinnati, Ohio; El Monte, California; Laguna Niguel, California; and Washington, D.C.[35] applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:[36][37][38]

[*]referenced words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12 Project" in the case file;

[*]outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;

[*]involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";

[*]had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;

[*]advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;

[*]were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act known by many as Obamacare;

[*]questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501©(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period,[Note 2] only 4 were approved.[40] During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive," "progress," "liberal," or "equality."[40][41] (However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])

Exactly. This has all been discussed in the main thread.When egomaniacs start new threads because they feel their opinion is too important to discuss in a general subject thread it becomes a giant exercise in time wasting.

 

[NCCommish]

Here's what gets me. There were 300 apps that picked up additional scrutiny. Of those 75 were TP type orgs. The same orgs the GOP had been badgering the IRS to check more closely by the way. Of all the additional scrutiny done only 2 organizations lost their status. They were liberal organizations.

Initially this looked really bad. It looked like it was targeted at certain political groups. It wasn't. It was targeted to try to stop people from abusing tax exempt status and using it to bankroll campaigns for their preferred candidate. This is what the IRS is supposed to do. It's their job. And it was a self described conservative Republican that got the ball rolling while a conservative Republican was in charge of the IRS. I'd say it's time for the right to slowly walk away and look for another Watergate to try to gin up.

Beginning in March 2010, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under Section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names.[34] These words were generally associated with the political right in the US, an ideological screen. In May 2010, some employees of the "Determinations Unit" of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the "Be On the Look Out" list.

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes. Eventually, IRS employees in at least Cincinnati, Ohio; El Monte, California; Laguna Niguel, California; and Washington, D.C.[35] applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:[36][37][38]

[*]referenced words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12 Project" in the case file;

[*]outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;

[*]involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";

[*]had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;

[*]advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;

[*]were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act known by many as Obamacare;

[*]questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501©(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period,[Note 2] only 4 were approved.[40] During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive," "progress," "liberal," or "equality."[40][41] (However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])

Exactly. This has all been discussed in the main thread.When egomaniacs start new threads because they feel their opinion is too important to discuss in a general subject thread it becomes a giant exercise in time wasting.

(However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])

 

[NCCommish]

Lesson for the Right: Take it ( ) down a notch.

Lesson for the Left: Yes, people think it's possible you'd do such a thing.

I wouldn't say so much Left and Right. I'd say Democrat and Republican.

I won't speak for conservatives and their view on the GOP but I will say I don't consider the Democrats as the left. At least not very many of them and certainly no one in a position of real power.

So why are you not critical of Obama and the White House? I'm just asking not trying to wage WW III over it.

I have criticized them for extra-judicial killings. I have criticized them for the expansion of the imperial executive. I have criticized them for trying to cut Social Security. I have criticized them for not jailing bankers who nearly destroyed the world economy. In fact I doubt there are many subjects I haven't criticized them on.

Now that doesn't mean that every wannabe scandal that comes down the pike I am going to get on board with because most of them don't get there. Like this one.

Just to add I would get behind a movement to impeach based on extra judicial killings but that won't happen. Instead we get this junk.

 

[Mr Non Sequitur]

The New York Times wrote that the Obama administration has lost all credibility. I didn't write that, they did and since they are one of the biggest Liberal publications in the entire country besides being one of the most read newspapers on the planet, it's very telling. You can laugh it off or try and tear it down but it only makes you look more foolish defending Obama and the White House and frankly makes you lose board credibility.

This isn't a very good thought process.

What are you hoping to gain? It added nothing to refute what was written, just an attempt to insult me as a poster or to question my intelligence. Always a sure sign that the position from the opposing poster is shaky at best.

This thread was started for no reason other than the OP wanting to try and stir the pot. You can't take someone seriously when their ammo is something like "just go away" which is exactly what the Obama administration is wanting/hoping. You could say what you wrote about any post in here if you want to.

Now I would agree it is simplistic but I have no love for either party, you obviously vote left. To use a quote or source that leans heavily to the very party that is under scrutiny is usually thought of in scholarly circles as an intelligent way to prove one's point. You however say otherwise so we'll just agree to disagree, have a good one bud.

I'm hoping to stop yet another dumb partisan from posting anymore.

What the heck does that mean? Partisan? I just posted I have no love for either party, why would you come back with this after I closed with something more upbeat than downbeat? You may not know me but I have watched you post for some time, usually a fan, no reason to start calling me dumb if that is in fact what you are saying, maybe I misread it. I keep trying to wink at you but you just keep swinging so have at it.

 

[Rayderr]

Here's what gets me. There were 300 apps that picked up additional scrutiny. Of those 75 were TP type orgs. The same orgs the GOP had been badgering the IRS to check more closely by the way. Of all the additional scrutiny done only 2 organizations lost their status. They were liberal organizations.

Initially this looked really bad. It looked like it was targeted at certain political groups. It wasn't. It was targeted to try to stop people from abusing tax exempt status and using it to bankroll campaigns for their preferred candidate. This is what the IRS is supposed to do. It's their job. And it was a self described conservative Republican that got the ball rolling while a conservative Republican was in charge of the IRS. I'd say it's time for the right to slowly walk away and look for another Watergate to try to gin up.

Beginning in March 2010, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under Section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names.[34] These words were generally associated with the political right in the US, an ideological screen. In May 2010, some employees of the "Determinations Unit" of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the "Be On the Look Out" list.

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes. Eventually, IRS employees in at least Cincinnati, Ohio; El Monte, California; Laguna Niguel, California; and Washington, D.C.[35] applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:[36][37][38]

[*]referenced words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12 Project" in the case file;

[*]outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;

[*]involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";

[*]had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;

[*]advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;

[*]were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act known by many as Obamacare;

[*]questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501©(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period,[Note 2] only 4 were approved.[40] During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive," "progress," "liberal," or "equality."[40][41] (However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])

Exactly. This has all been discussed in the main thread.When egomaniacs start new threads because they feel their opinion is too important to discuss in a general subject thread it becomes a giant exercise in time wasting.

(However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])

You're trying to change what the complaints are about. It's not about Tea Party groups being denied. It's being targeted because they were Tea Party groups. If the scrutiny was applied evenly, this would be a non-issue. But it wasn't.

 

[NCCommish]

Here's what gets me. There were 300 apps that picked up additional scrutiny. Of those 75 were TP type orgs. The same orgs the GOP had been badgering the IRS to check more closely by the way. Of all the additional scrutiny done only 2 organizations lost their status. They were liberal organizations.

Initially this looked really bad. It looked like it was targeted at certain political groups. It wasn't. It was targeted to try to stop people from abusing tax exempt status and using it to bankroll campaigns for their preferred candidate. This is what the IRS is supposed to do. It's their job. And it was a self described conservative Republican that got the ball rolling while a conservative Republican was in charge of the IRS. I'd say it's time for the right to slowly walk away and look for another Watergate to try to gin up.

Beginning in March 2010, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under Section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names.[34] These words were generally associated with the political right in the US, an ideological screen. In May 2010, some employees of the "Determinations Unit" of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the "Be On the Look Out" list.

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes. Eventually, IRS employees in at least Cincinnati, Ohio; El Monte, California; Laguna Niguel, California; and Washington, D.C.[35] applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:[36][37][38]

[*]referenced words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12 Project" in the case file;

[*]outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;

[*]involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";

[*]had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;

[*]advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;

[*]were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act known by many as Obamacare;

[*]questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501©(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period,[Note 2] only 4 were approved.[40] During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive," "progress," "liberal," or "equality."[40][41] (However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])

Exactly. This has all been discussed in the main thread.When egomaniacs start new threads because they feel their opinion is too important to discuss in a general subject thread it becomes a giant exercise in time wasting.

(However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])

You're trying to change what the complaints are about. It's not about Tea Party groups being denied. It's being targeted because they were Tea Party groups. If the scrutiny was applied evenly, this would be a non-issue. But it wasn't.

Yes it was all so one sided that the only groups to lose status were liberal. I wonder how that happened if only Tea Party groups were targeted?This one is over time to move on.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Here's what gets me. There were 300 apps that picked up additional scrutiny. Of those 75 were TP type orgs. The same orgs the GOP had been badgering the IRS to check more closely by the way. Of all the additional scrutiny done only 2 organizations lost their status. They were liberal organizations.

Initially this looked really bad. It looked like it was targeted at certain political groups. It wasn't. It was targeted to try to stop people from abusing tax exempt status and using it to bankroll campaigns for their preferred candidate. This is what the IRS is supposed to do. It's their job. And it was a self described conservative Republican that got the ball rolling while a conservative Republican was in charge of the IRS. I'd say it's time for the right to slowly walk away and look for another Watergate to try to gin up.

Beginning in March 2010, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under Section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names.[34] These words were generally associated with the political right in the US, an ideological screen. In May 2010, some employees of the "Determinations Unit" of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the "Be On the Look Out" list.

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes. Eventually, IRS employees in at least Cincinnati, Ohio; El Monte, California; Laguna Niguel, California; and Washington, D.C.[35] applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:[36][37][38]

[*]referenced words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12 Project" in the case file;

[*]outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;

[*]involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";

[*]had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;

[*]advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;

[*]were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act known by many as Obamacare;

[*]questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501©(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period,[Note 2] only 4 were approved.[40] During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive," "progress," "liberal," or "equality."[40][41] (However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])

Exactly. This has all been discussed in the main thread.When egomaniacs start new threads because they feel their opinion is too important to discuss in a general subject thread it becomes a giant exercise in time wasting.

(However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])

You're trying to change what the complaints are about. It's not about Tea Party groups being denied. It's being targeted because they were Tea Party groups. If the scrutiny was applied evenly, this would be a non-issue. But it wasn't.

I will quote from the OP.

"A self-described conservative Republican who is a manager in the Internal Revenue Service office that targeted tea party groups told investigators that he, not the White House, set the review in motion."

Now which way does the Tea Party lean again?

in the end the reason for the review was not partisan and the white house had nothing to do with it.

Anything else is reading something more into it for partisan reasons.

 

[Rayderr]

Here's what gets me. There were 300 apps that picked up additional scrutiny. Of those 75 were TP type orgs. The same orgs the GOP had been badgering the IRS to check more closely by the way. Of all the additional scrutiny done only 2 organizations lost their status. They were liberal organizations.

Initially this looked really bad. It looked like it was targeted at certain political groups. It wasn't. It was targeted to try to stop people from abusing tax exempt status and using it to bankroll campaigns for their preferred candidate. This is what the IRS is supposed to do. It's their job. And it was a self described conservative Republican that got the ball rolling while a conservative Republican was in charge of the IRS. I'd say it's time for the right to slowly walk away and look for another Watergate to try to gin up.

Beginning in March 2010, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under Section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names.[34] These words were generally associated with the political right in the US, an ideological screen. In May 2010, some employees of the "Determinations Unit" of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the "Be On the Look Out" list.

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes. Eventually, IRS employees in at least Cincinnati, Ohio; El Monte, California; Laguna Niguel, California; and Washington, D.C.[35] applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:[36][37][38]

[*]referenced words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12 Project" in the case file;

[*]outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;

[*]involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";

[*]had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;

[*]advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;

[*]were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act known by many as Obamacare;

[*]questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501©(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period,[Note 2] only 4 were approved.[40] During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive," "progress," "liberal," or "equality."[40][41] (However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])

Exactly. This has all been discussed in the main thread.When egomaniacs start new threads because they feel their opinion is too important to discuss in a general subject thread it becomes a giant exercise in time wasting.

(However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])

You're trying to change what the complaints are about. It's not about Tea Party groups being denied. It's being targeted because they were Tea Party groups. If the scrutiny was applied evenly, this would be a non-issue. But it wasn't.

Yes it was all so one sided that the only groups to lose status were liberal. I wonder how that happened if only Tea Party groups were targeted?This one is over time to move on.

4 conservative groups were approved in 2010 and 2011 combined. 22 liberal groups were approved in that same time frame. a 6:1 ratio is not good.

I don't believe that this is the result of Obama ordering it, but rather just some mid-management types behaving inappropriately. But to stick your head in the sand like you are doing is just utterly ridiculous.

 

[roadkill1292]

The New York Times wrote that the Obama administration has lost all credibility. I didn't write that, they did and since they are one of the biggest Liberal publications in the entire country besides being one of the most read newspapers on the planet, it's very telling. You can laugh it off or try and tear it down but it only makes you look more foolish defending Obama and the White House and frankly makes you lose board credibility.

This isn't a very good thought process.

What are you hoping to gain? It added nothing to refute what was written, just an attempt to insult me as a poster or to question my intelligence. Always a sure sign that the position from the opposing poster is shaky at best.

This thread was started for no reason other than the OP wanting to try and stir the pot. You can't take someone seriously when their ammo is something like "just go away" which is exactly what the Obama administration is wanting/hoping. You could say what you wrote about any post in here if you want to.

Now I would agree it is simplistic but I have no love for either party, you obviously vote left. To use a quote or source that leans heavily to the very party that is under scrutiny is usually thought of in scholarly circles as an intelligent way to prove one's point. You however say otherwise so we'll just agree to disagree, have a good one bud.

I'm hoping to stop yet another dumb partisan from posting anymore.

What the heck does that mean? Partisan? I just posted I have no love for either party, why would you come back with this after I closed with something more upbeat than downbeat? You may not know me but I have watched you post for some time, usually a fan, no reason to start calling me dumb if that is in fact what you are saying, maybe I misread it. I keep trying to wink at you but you just keep swinging so have at it.

Look at the part I bolded. Perhaps I misunderstood you but NCC is far from the fool. Whether you agree with him or not, he's laying out a tough case for his point of view.

I'm sorry we're getting off on the wrong foot. Your avatar makes the paranoid roadkill think you might be arch-nemesis Cobalt goading me to anger.

 

[NCCommish]

4 conservative groups were approved in 2010 and 2011 combined. 22 liberal groups were approved in that same time frame. a 6:1 ratio is not good.

I don't believe that this is the result of Obama ordering it, but rather just some mid-management types behaving inappropriately. But to stick your head in the sand like you are doing is just utterly ridiculous.

But that isn't a big scandal. That is people being stupid. As I said at the outset if the intention were to specifically target Tea Party people then by all means punish those that did it. But stop acting like it's ####### Watergate because it isn't. It's the same stupid crap that happens in every big institution in the world.

So the GOP can look like idiots and continue to seem like the boy who cried wolf or they can move on.

 

[NCCommish]

By the way does anyone really think American Crossroads should be a 501c4 or for that matter Priorities USA Action? Really?

 

[timschochet]

4 conservative groups were approved in 2010 and 2011 combined. 22 liberal groups were approved in that same time frame. a 6:1 ratio is not good. I don't believe that this is the result of Obama ordering it, but rather just some mid-management types behaving inappropriately. But to stick your head in the sand like you are doing is just utterly ridiculous.

But that isn't a big scandal. That is people being stupid. As I said at the outset if the intention were to specifically target Tea Party people then by all means punish those that did it. But stop acting like it's ####### Watergate because it isn't. It's the same stupid crap that happens in every big institution in the world. So the GOP can look like idiots and continue to seem like the boy who cried wolf or they can move on.

Agree 100%.

 

[oso diablo]

By the way does anyone really think American Crossroads should be a 501c4 or for that matter Priorities USA Action? Really?

or OFA

 

[NCCommish]

By the way does anyone really think American Crossroads should be a 501c4 or for that matter Priorities USA Action? Really?

or OFA

OFA is probably going to be more about electioneering in the long run so my answer would be no it shouldn't. Is it currently? I really don't know though I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[oso diablo]

By the way does anyone really think American Crossroads should be a 501c4 or for that matter Priorities USA Action? Really?

or OFA

OFA is probably going to be more about electioneering in the long run so my answer would be no it shouldn't. Is it currently? I really don't know though I wouldn't be surprised.

yes, OFA is a 501( c)4

 

[NCCommish]

By the way does anyone really think American Crossroads should be a 501c4 or for that matter Priorities USA Action? Really?

or OFA

OFA is probably going to be more about electioneering in the long run so my answer would be no it shouldn't. Is it currently? I really don't know though I wouldn't be surprised.

yes, OFA is a 501( c)4

Well that seems like another one that shouldn't be. As I said I expect them to be more about electioneering than anything else.

 

[Warrior]

I pretty much assume anything written/posted by FSM is total, skewed bs at this point.

 

[timschochet]

I pretty much assume anything written/posted by FSM is total, skewed bs at this point.

But here he's just posting an article. Either the facts laid out in that article are true, or they're not. I don't think you can evaluate this based on who it was posting it.

 

[Rayderr]

4 conservative groups were approved in 2010 and 2011 combined. 22 liberal groups were approved in that same time frame. a 6:1 ratio is not good.

I don't believe that this is the result of Obama ordering it, but rather just some mid-management types behaving inappropriately. But to stick your head in the sand like you are doing is just utterly ridiculous.

But that isn't a big scandal. That is people being stupid. As I said at the outset if the intention were to specifically target Tea Party people then by all means punish those that did it. But stop acting like it's ####### Watergate because it isn't. It's the same stupid crap that happens in every big institution in the world.

So the GOP can look like idiots and continue to seem like the boy who cried wolf or they can move on.

I think a part of the gov't intentionally targetting a segment of the population (whether it be political beliefs, religious beliefs, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is a big deal. As mentioned previously, I do not think Obama, or anyone in the White House is responsible. But I do believe it is in the interest of the American Public to fully investigate it, punish those that are responsible, and determine what needs to be done so it can't be happen again.

And you constantly coming into these threads and saying "A LIBERAL GROUP GOT DENIED!!! SEE?!?!?! MOVE ALONG!!!!" makes you look like a political hack who is more interested in downplaying it just in case it does end up being a bigger scandal. This is a big deal. It doesn't need Obama to be involved to be a big deal and it being a big deal does not mean Obama is worst than Nixon.

 

[Rayderr]

I pretty much assume anything written/posted by FSM is total, skewed bs at this point.

But here he's just posting an article. Either the facts laid out in that article are true, or they're not. I don't think you can evaluate this based on who it was posting it.

The irony of course is that FSM will instantly blast any poster and article if the article comes from FOXNews because it's biased, yet he posts from Maddow's blog in this case which is just as biased.

 

[Sarnoff]

When egomaniacs start new threads because they feel their opinion is too important to discuss in a general subject thread it becomes a giant exercise in time wasting.

When will FSM's afternoon meds kick in? I can't wait to see him start his rebuttal thread under his Jim11 alias.

Oh, and I wonder what cr8f is up to nowadays....

 

[FlapJacks]

I pretty much assume anything written/posted by FSM is total, skewed bs at this point.

But here he's just posting an article. Either the facts laid out in that article are true, or they're not. I don't think you can evaluate this based on who it was posting it.

It gets exhausing refuting a constant stream of one bull#### story after another, and then after they're refuted, the same talking points on continuous recycle. It ceases to become discussion.

 

[NCCommish]

4 conservative groups were approved in 2010 and 2011 combined. 22 liberal groups were approved in that same time frame. a 6:1 ratio is not good.

I don't believe that this is the result of Obama ordering it, but rather just some mid-management types behaving inappropriately. But to stick your head in the sand like you are doing is just utterly ridiculous.

But that isn't a big scandal. That is people being stupid. As I said at the outset if the intention were to specifically target Tea Party people then by all means punish those that did it. But stop acting like it's ####### Watergate because it isn't. It's the same stupid crap that happens in every big institution in the world.

So the GOP can look like idiots and continue to seem like the boy who cried wolf or they can move on.

I think a part of the gov't intentionally targetting a segment of the population (whether it be political beliefs, religious beliefs, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is a big deal. As mentioned previously, I do not think Obama, or anyone in the White House is responsible. But I do believe it is in the interest of the American Public to fully investigate it, punish those that are responsible, and determine what needs to be done so it can't be happen again.

And you constantly coming into these threads and saying "A LIBERAL GROUP GOT DENIED!!! SEE?!?!?! MOVE ALONG!!!!" makes you look like a political hack who is more interested in downplaying it just in case it does end up being a bigger scandal. This is a big deal. It doesn't need Obama to be involved to be a big deal and it being a big deal does not mean Obama is worst than Nixon.

No my point in mentioning who actually suffered is to make it clear that it wasn't only Tea Party groups that got targeted. Ignoring that is what makes this look like hackery because it ignores the reality that Tea Party groups weren't the only ones targeted. Have I mentioned that Tea Party types weren't the only ones targeted? Because you'd have a hard time knowing that reading what is written here and other places about it.

And I am not the one who goes on TV and screams about impeaching Obama over it, repealing the ACA over it and how it's bigger than Watergate. That would be the illustrious GOP, speaking of hacks.

 

[Rayderr]

4 conservative groups were approved in 2010 and 2011 combined. 22 liberal groups were approved in that same time frame. a 6:1 ratio is not good.

I don't believe that this is the result of Obama ordering it, but rather just some mid-management types behaving inappropriately. But to stick your head in the sand like you are doing is just utterly ridiculous.

But that isn't a big scandal. That is people being stupid. As I said at the outset if the intention were to specifically target Tea Party people then by all means punish those that did it. But stop acting like it's ####### Watergate because it isn't. It's the same stupid crap that happens in every big institution in the world.

So the GOP can look like idiots and continue to seem like the boy who cried wolf or they can move on.

I think a part of the gov't intentionally targetting a segment of the population (whether it be political beliefs, religious beliefs, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is a big deal. As mentioned previously, I do not think Obama, or anyone in the White House is responsible. But I do believe it is in the interest of the American Public to fully investigate it, punish those that are responsible, and determine what needs to be done so it can't be happen again.

And you constantly coming into these threads and saying "A LIBERAL GROUP GOT DENIED!!! SEE?!?!?! MOVE ALONG!!!!" makes you look like a political hack who is more interested in downplaying it just in case it does end up being a bigger scandal. This is a big deal. It doesn't need Obama to be involved to be a big deal and it being a big deal does not mean Obama is worst than Nixon.

No my point in mentioning who actually suffered is to make it clear that it wasn't only Tea Party groups that got targeted. Ignoring that is what makes this look like hackery because it ignores the reality that Tea Party groups weren't the only ones targeted. Have I mentioned that Tea Party types weren't the only ones targeted? Because you'd have a hard time knowing that reading what is written here and other places about it.

And I am not the one who goes on TV and screams about impeaching Obama over it, repealing the ACA over it and how it's bigger than Watergate. That would be the illustrious GOP, speaking of hacks.

Did I miss the memo that said to target groups that have words like "Progress" or "Liberal" in the name? Didn't think so.

 

[GroveDiesel]

4 conservative groups were approved in 2010 and 2011 combined. 22 liberal groups were approved in that same time frame. a 6:1 ratio is not good. I don't believe that this is the result of Obama ordering it, but rather just some mid-management types behaving inappropriately. But to stick your head in the sand like you are doing is just utterly ridiculous.

But that isn't a big scandal. That is people being stupid. As I said at the outset if the intention were to specifically target Tea Party people then by all means punish those that did it. But stop acting like it's ####### Watergate because it isn't. It's the same stupid crap that happens in every big institution in the world. So the GOP can look like idiots and continue to seem like the boy who cried wolf or they can move on.

I think a part of the gov't intentionally targetting a segment of the population (whether it be political beliefs, religious beliefs, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is a big deal. As mentioned previously, I do not think Obama, or anyone in the White House is responsible. But I do believe it is in the interest of the American Public to fully investigate it, punish those that are responsible, and determine what needs to be done so it can't be happen again. And you constantly coming into these threads and saying "A LIBERAL GROUP GOT DENIED!!! SEE?!?!?! MOVE ALONG!!!!" makes you look like a political hack who is more interested in downplaying it just in case it does end up being a bigger scandal. This is a big deal. It doesn't need Obama to be involved to be a big deal and it being a big deal does not mean Obama is worst than Nixon.

No my point in mentioning who actually suffered is to make it clear that it wasn't only Tea Party groups that got targeted. Ignoring that is what makes this look like hackery because it ignores the reality that Tea Party groups weren't the only ones targeted. Have I mentioned that Tea Party types weren't the only ones targeted? Because you'd have a hard time knowing that reading what is written here and other places about it. And I am not the one who goes on TV and screams about impeaching Obama over it, repealing the ACA over it and how it's bigger than Watergate. That would be the illustrious GOP, speaking of hacks.

Just because liberal groups were investigated doesn't mean they were targeted. Surely you understand that distinction.

 

[matuski]

4 conservative groups were approved in 2010 and 2011 combined. 22 liberal groups were approved in that same time frame. a 6:1 ratio is not good. I don't believe that this is the result of Obama ordering it, but rather just some mid-management types behaving inappropriately. But to stick your head in the sand like you are doing is just utterly ridiculous.

But that isn't a big scandal. That is people being stupid. As I said at the outset if the intention were to specifically target Tea Party people then by all means punish those that did it. But stop acting like it's ####### Watergate because it isn't. It's the same stupid crap that happens in every big institution in the world. So the GOP can look like idiots and continue to seem like the boy who cried wolf or they can move on.

I think a part of the gov't intentionally targetting a segment of the population (whether it be political beliefs, religious beliefs, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is a big deal. As mentioned previously, I do not think Obama, or anyone in the White House is responsible. But I do believe it is in the interest of the American Public to fully investigate it, punish those that are responsible, and determine what needs to be done so it can't be happen again. And you constantly coming into these threads and saying "A LIBERAL GROUP GOT DENIED!!! SEE?!?!?! MOVE ALONG!!!!" makes you look like a political hack who is more interested in downplaying it just in case it does end up being a bigger scandal. This is a big deal. It doesn't need Obama to be involved to be a big deal and it being a big deal does not mean Obama is worst than Nixon.

No my point in mentioning who actually suffered is to make it clear that it wasn't only Tea Party groups that got targeted. Ignoring that is what makes this look like hackery because it ignores the reality that Tea Party groups weren't the only ones targeted. Have I mentioned that Tea Party types weren't the only ones targeted? Because you'd have a hard time knowing that reading what is written here and other places about it. And I am not the one who goes on TV and screams about impeaching Obama over it, repealing the ACA over it and how it's bigger than Watergate. That would be the illustrious GOP, speaking of hacks.

Just because liberal groups were investigated doesn't mean they were targeted. Surely you understand that distinction.

The liberal groups were the only ones to get the boot, if the there were another group "targeted" surely they would have something to point to?

Not that I am asking you guys to stop, I'm always a big fan of the latest conservative efforts to make fools of themselves.

 

[GroveDiesel]

4 conservative groups were approved in 2010 and 2011 combined. 22 liberal groups were approved in that same time frame. a 6:1 ratio is not good. I don't believe that this is the result of Obama ordering it, but rather just some mid-management types behaving inappropriately. But to stick your head in the sand like you are doing is just utterly ridiculous.

But that isn't a big scandal. That is people being stupid. As I said at the outset if the intention were to specifically target Tea Party people then by all means punish those that did it. But stop acting like it's ####### Watergate because it isn't. It's the same stupid crap that happens in every big institution in the world. So the GOP can look like idiots and continue to seem like the boy who cried wolf or they can move on.

I think a part of the gov't intentionally targetting a segment of the population (whether it be political beliefs, religious beliefs, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is a big deal. As mentioned previously, I do not think Obama, or anyone in the White House is responsible. But I do believe it is in the interest of the American Public to fully investigate it, punish those that are responsible, and determine what needs to be done so it can't be happen again. And you constantly coming into these threads and saying "A LIBERAL GROUP GOT DENIED!!! SEE?!?!?! MOVE ALONG!!!!" makes you look like a political hack who is more interested in downplaying it just in case it does end up being a bigger scandal. This is a big deal. It doesn't need Obama to be involved to be a big deal and it being a big deal does not mean Obama is worst than Nixon.

No my point in mentioning who actually suffered is to make it clear that it wasn't only Tea Party groups that got targeted. Ignoring that is what makes this look like hackery because it ignores the reality that Tea Party groups weren't the only ones targeted. Have I mentioned that Tea Party types weren't the only ones targeted? Because you'd have a hard time knowing that reading what is written here and other places about it. And I am not the one who goes on TV and screams about impeaching Obama over it, repealing the ACA over it and how it's bigger than Watergate. That would be the illustrious GOP, speaking of hacks.

Just because liberal groups were investigated doesn't mean they were targeted. Surely you understand that distinction.

The liberal groups were the only ones to get the boot, if the there were another group "targeted" surely they would have something to point to?

Not that I am asking you guys to stop, I'm always a big fan of the latest conservative efforts to make fools of themselves.

You realize that all this proves is that, despite being audited at about 10 times the rate, conservative groups came away without being in the wrong while liberal groups actually were in the wrong, right?