The IRS Targeted Groups Containing 'Tea Party,' 'Progressive,' 'Occupy,' And 'Israel'

[Cigar]

Ooops; Next Scandal Please.

The Internal Revenue Service's screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency said Monday.

An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides "tea party," lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms "Israel," ''Progressive" and "Occupy." The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway.

In a conference call with reporters, Danny Werfel said that after becoming acting IRS chief last month, he discovered wide-ranging and improper terms on the lists and said screeners were still using them. He did not specify what terms were on the lists, but said he suspended the use of all such lists immediately.

"There was a wide-ranging set of categories and cases that spanned a broad spectrum" on the lists, Werfel said. He added that his aides found those lists contained "inappropriate criteria that was in use."



http://www.businessinsider.com/irs-tea-party-targeting-report-danny-werfel-occupy-israel-progressive-2013-6#ixzz2XAkXlV87

http://www.businessinsider.com/irs-tea-party-targeting-report-danny-werfel-occupy-israel-progressive-2013-6?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=alerts&nr_email_referer=1



http://bcsd.k12.ny.us/middle/michalek/bomb.jpg

[Mainecoons]

Your usual misrepresentation by omission:


A November 2010 version of the list (http://global.nationalreview.com/pdf/irs-tea-party_062413.pdf) obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) groups are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off ”to Group 7822″ for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.


The AP reported earlier on Monday that “Terms including ‘Israel,’ ’Progressive’ and ‘Occupy’ were used by agency workers to help pick groups for closer examination.” That appears to be misleading, as there is no indication from the list examined by NRO that progressive groups were singled out for heightened scrutiny in a manner similar to tea-party groups. Cases involving healthcare legislation, however, were. “New applications are subject to secondary screening in Group 7821,” the list notes.


Also sent along for more further examination were applications involving ”disputed territories in the Middle East,” in particular, those that advocated a “one sided point of view,” which perhaps explains the testimony of Cincinnati screener Gary Muthert, who told commitee investigators (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351208/irs-vs-pro-israel-groups-eliana-johnson) that the applications of pro-Israel groups went to an antiterrorism unit within the agency.


Based on the lookout list examined by NRO, however, it is inaccurate to say that the applications of progressive and liberal groups were subjected to the same scrutiny as those of tea-party groups, or even that a surprisingly broad array of criteria was applied to screen applications for tax exemption.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351930/lookout-list-not-much-broader-originally-thought-contrary-reports-eliana-johnson

[Chris]

Besides, if it is true that "The IRS Targeted Groups Containing 'Tea Party,' 'Progressive,' 'Occupy,' And 'Israel'" then the problem is even more out of hand, our government is running amuck.

[Cigar]

A self-described conservative Republican who is a manager in the Internal Revenue Service (http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=nation&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Internal+Revenue+Service%22) 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.

So let me guess .. "you" know more than the people who were "actually" working in the IRS office ... :rollseyes:

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Republican-worker-linked-to-IRS-probes-4590461.php

[Mainecoons]

Beyond the words, there's no evidence that they actually subjected the leftist groups to the same treatment they did the others. Only a Cigar would believe that this happened and miraculously, said groups have not complained like the others. In the real world, they would be screaming as loud as the rest. They aren't for the reason stated in my reference. The words may have been on the list but the follow through was almost all targeted at the right.

And Chris has it correct, everyone should be offended by the actions of the IRS. However, the left continues to ignore every bit of lawbreaking coming from the Obama administration.

As usual, Cigar sees one story that he believes supports his partisan views and doesn't bother to dig a little deeper and find out that he's been used again.

[Cigar]

Besides, if it is true that "The IRS Targeted Groups Containing 'Tea Party,' 'Progressive,' 'Occupy,' And 'Israel'" then the problem is even more out of hand, our government is running amuck.

Just so I get this straight ... you advocate blaming the System over Individuals?

Ok ... let see how far that goes :wink:

[Cigar]

Beyond the words, there's no evidence that they actually subjected the leftist groups to the same treatment they did the others. Only a Cigar would believe that this happened and miraculously, said groups have not complained like the others. In the real world, they would be screaming as loud as the rest. They aren't for the reason stated in my reference. The words may have been on the list but the follow through was almost all targeted at the right.

As usual, Cigar sees one story that he believes supports his partisan views and doesn't bother to dig a little deeper and find out that he's been used again.

Ok got it ... so the IRS Employee Lied under Oath.

There you go Darryl Issa ... you're smoking Gun is a Register Republican.

Keep Digging ... :wink:

[Mainecoons]

That the best you can come up with when caught in your usual misrepresentation?

List for us the leftist organizations that have complained about actually being targeted.

Good luck, genius.

[Chris]

Just so I get this straight ... you advocate blaming the System over Individuals?

Ok ... let see how far that goes :wink:

No, the system of individuals, the uncontrolled bureaucrats making up the 4th branch of government--uncontrolled in the sense the CEO in this case only learned about it in the news.

[Ravi]

Ooops; Next Scandal Please.

The Internal Revenue Service's screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency said Monday.

An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides "tea party," lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms "Israel," ''Progressive" and "Occupy." The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway.

In a conference call with reporters, Danny Werfel said that after becoming acting IRS chief last month, he discovered wide-ranging and improper terms on the lists and said screeners were still using them. He did not specify what terms were on the lists, but said he suspended the use of all such lists immediately.

"There was a wide-ranging set of categories and cases that spanned a broad spectrum" on the lists, Werfel said. He added that his aides found those lists contained "inappropriate criteria that was in use."



http://www.businessinsider.com/irs-tea-party-targeting-report-danny-werfel-occupy-israel-progressive-2013-6#ixzz2XAkXlV87

http://www.businessinsider.com/irs-tea-party-targeting-report-danny-werfel-occupy-israel-progressive-2013-6?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=alerts&nr_email_referer=1



http://bcsd.k12.ny.us/middle/michalek/bomb.jpg
So basically they were doing their job. All these organizations should be scrutinized up the wazoo.

[patrickt]

When the system directs individuals the system is culpable. I suppose liberals never dreamed that a hostile work environment could me what we have now. "Can no one rid me of these troublesome Tea Partiers?" It's like unions. When they urge people to commit assaults, sabotage, theft, and murder the union itself should be held accountable. Sadly, the liberals don't allow that. Or, when a liberal congressman whips up his congregation, oops, voter base by screeching, "It's time to get in the street and get bloody," he should be held accountable as Al Sharpton should have been held accountable for whipping up the group in Crown Heights who rampaged off and killed a student.

[Chris]

So basically they were doing their job. All these organizations should be scrutinized up the wazoo.

No, so basically they were abusing their power. All cigar is doing is trying to do is throw out a partisan gotcha.

[Ravi]

No, so basically they were abusing their power. All cigar is doing is trying to do is throw out a partisan gotcha.
^Typical blind republican partisanship. Their job is to make sure people follow the tax code and don't cheat the system. If they were scrutinizing all the groups they were doing their job.

[Mainecoons]

But they weren't.

Either of you, please provide a list of liberal/progressive organizations that were actually targeted and complained about it publicly.

[jillian]

Your usual misrepresentation by omission:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351930/lookout-list-not-much-broader-originally-thought-contrary-reports-eliana-johnson[/FONT][/COLOR]

what did he "omit" that was relevant to the discussion?

your guys lied. it would appear to normal people that the IRS was going after all groups that illegally politicized while demanding tax exempt status in violation of 501(c)(4)

[Mainecoons]

You didn't read the reference I posted, I see.

Would you like to provide the list?

Maybe between the three of you, you can come up with something. :grin:

[jillian]

You didn't read the reference I posted, I see.

Would you like to provide the list?

Maybe between the three of you, you can come up with something. :grin:

why would i look at the opinion of the national review?

[Chris]

^Typical blind republican partisanship. Their job is to make sure people follow the tax code and don't cheat the system. If they were scrutinizing all the groups they were doing their job.

Uh, marie, why are you making things up? For one, I am not a Republican, never have been. For another, just above I condemned the IRS's abusing its power against both Tea Partyies and Progressives. So where are you coming up with this false accusation?

Or did you mean partisan in the sense I'm anti-statist and you're, what, pro?

[Chris]

what did he "omit" that was relevant to the discussion?

your guys lied. it would appear to normal people that the IRS was going after all groups that illegally politicized while demanding tax exempt status in violation of 501(c)(4)


(A) it would appear to normal people that (B) the IRS was going after all groups that illegally politicized while demanding tax exempt status in violation of 501(c)(4)

Ignoring the well poisoning (A), how can (B) be true they were guilty when it is a fact that the IRS was investigating whether they were eligible? (B) is also beside the point of their admitted targeting certain groups.

[Mainecoons]

Do we have a list yet? :grin:

[Mainecoons]

why would i look at the opinion of the national review?

To learn why it is misrepresentative to claim that liberal groups were actually targeted when they weren't?

Because you want to examine things from a number of sides before posting here? :grin:

Do you understand the difference between CYA listing of liberal groups versus actually targeting them and subjecting them to the kind of hostile interrogations that the conservative groups were subjected to?

But, hey, no problem. Just post a list with references of liberal groups that actually did get the third degree from the IRS. Prove my link wrong.

[patrickt]

^Typical blind republican partisanship. Their job is to make sure people follow the tax code and don't cheat the system. If they were scrutinizing all the groups they were doing their job.
So, the police are supposed to enforce traffic laws but if they only enforce against minorities...that's fine with Marie.

[patrickt]

why would i look at the opinion of the national review?
Why would Jillian look at anything. She has her faith and she won't be moved.

[Chris]

Why would Jillian look at anything. She has her faith and she won't be moved.

Anybody can attack a messenger, few can attack a message.

[keymanjim]

why would i look at the opinion of the national review?
Heaven forbid that you should ever want to learn anything, MQ
The link provided shown actual IRS paperwork that shows conservative groups being put under increased scrutiny while liberal groups were practically approved on the spot.

[Mainecoons]

Where's the list/beef?

:grin:

[Mainecoons]

Question: How many liberals does it take to come up with a list that supports their position?

Answer: More than three.

:rofl:

[Ravi]

Uh, marie, why are you making things up? For one, I am not a Republican, never have been. For another, just above I condemned the IRS's abusing its power against both Tea Partyies and Progressives. So where are you coming up with this false accusation?

Or did you mean partisan in the sense I'm anti-statist and you're, what, pro?
What's up with the personal attack? I did not say you were a Republican.

[Chris]

Question: How many liberals does it take to come up with a list that supports their position?

Answer: More than three.

:rofl:

One to distract the thread, one to hold the list, and one to screw into it false claims.

[Chris]

No, so basically they were abusing their power. All cigar is doing is trying to do is throw out a partisan gotcha.


^Typical blind republican partisanship. Their job is to make sure people follow the tax code and don't cheat the system. If they were scrutinizing all the groups they were doing their job.


What's up with the personal attack? I did not say you were a Republican.

You falsely accused me of being a Republican partisan.

Where's the personal attack? Or is that another false accusation?

[Ravi]

You falsely accused me of being a Republican partisan.

Where's the personal attack? Or is that another false accusation?
Your inference is incorrect. But look at that, yet another personal attack!

[Chris]

Your inference is incorrect. But look at that, yet another personal attack!

But I made no personal attack therefore your accusation is false.

[Ravi]

But I made no personal attack therefore your accusation is false.Bull. You said I was making things up....calling me a liar. Don't be such a weenie and man up for once in your life.

[TheInternet]

I'd like to know which lib groups were targeted, or asked the same type of invasive questions that were asked of conservative groups. Is there a list yet?

[Private Pickle]

I'd like to know which lib groups were targeted, or asked the same type of invasive questions that were asked of conservative groups. Is there a list yet?

Doesn't exist.

[Mainecoons]

Your inference is incorrect. But look at that, yet another personal attack!

Where's the beef, Marie?

[Chris]

Bull. You said I was making things up....calling me a liar. Don't be such a weenie and man up for once in your life.

I didn't call you a liar, you just called yourself that though.

I said you made it up because I know for a fact that I am not a Republican and therefore you had to make it up, perhaps a bad inference, not based on facts, I don't need to explain your error, just establish it as false.

And now you call me names.

[Ravi]

I didn't call you a liar, you just called yourself that though.

I said you made it up because I know for a fact that I am not a Republican and therefore you had to make it up, perhaps a bad inference, not based on facts, I don't need to explain your error, just establish it as false.

And now you call me names.
I didn't say you were a republican. Damn, you twist around like a worm on a hook.

[Chris]

No, so basically they were abusing their power. All cigar is doing is trying to do is throw out a partisan gotcha.


^Typical blind republican partisanship. Their job is to make sure people follow the tax code and don't cheat the system. If they were scrutinizing all the groups they were doing their job.


I didn't say you were a republican. Damn, you twist around like a worm on a hook.

Again, I demonstrate you did. Your denial is what's wormy.

[Ravi]

Again, I demonstrate you did. Your denial is what's wormy.

One need not be a republican to spit out typical blind republican partisan posts. You do it all the time and you aren't even a republican.

[nic34]

One need not be a republican to spit out typical blind republican partisan posts. You do it all the time and you aren't even a republican.

You noticed that too? :grin:

[Chris]

Uh, marie, why are you making things up? For one, I am not a Republican, never have been. For another, just above I condemned the IRS's abusing its power against both Tea Partyies and Progressives. So where are you coming up with this false accusation?

Or did you mean partisan in the sense I'm anti-statist and you're, what, pro?


One need not be a republican to spit out typical blind republican partisan posts. You do it all the time and you aren't even a republican.

I already demonstrated that to be false as well.

Just more wormy twists.

[Mainecoons]

Update:

How many liberals does it take to come up with a simple list that would support their contention that the IRS actually did target liberal groups instead of just pretend to?

More than four.

:rofl:

[Chris]

Update:

How many liberals does it take to come up with a simple list that would support their contention that the IRS actually did target liberal groups instead of just pretend to?

More than four.

:rofl:

Sorry, I forgot about the one to hold the ladder.

[Agravan]

And one to shout:
3025

[Ravi]

Update:

How many liberals does it take to come up with a simple list that would support their contention that the IRS actually did target liberal groups instead of just pretend to?

More than four.

:rofl:

Liberal groups don't attain to be professional victims like tea party groups do. They also don't have a not so hidden agenda to blow every perceived slight into some ridiculous conspiracy theory like Chris does.

[Chris]

Liberal groups don't attain to be professional victims like tea party groups do. They also don't have a not so hidden agenda to blow every perceived slight into some ridiculous conspiracy theory like Chris does.

Always the pissy piss poor personal attacks. :yawn:



Liberal groups don't attain to be professional victims

What does that even mean?


at·tain
/əˈtān/
Verb
Succeed in achieving (something that one desires and has worked for): "he attained the rank of admiral".

So liberals fail to succeed at trying to be professional victims.



They also don't have a not so hidden agenda

Does the double negative imply liberals do have hidden agendas?


What are you saying anyhoo?

:grin:

[Agravan]

Liberal groups don't attain to be professional victims like tea party groups do.:bullshit::smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Ravi]

You noticed that too? :grin:

Repeatedly.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Liberal groups don't attain to be professional victims like tea party groups do. They also don't have a not so hidden agenda to blow every perceived slight into some ridiculous conspiracy theory like Chris does.

Every time a black Liberal makes a comment towards the fact that they are black or whatever, they are playing the race card, a very sinister form of victimization.

3026

See these quotes? Most professional victim right here.

"That's just how white folks will do you."

:biglaugh: he's trying to say he's a victim of racism.

Please do find me one single tea party quote that shows victimization.

I'll be waiting for a long time, I imagine.

[junie]

Repeatedly.


i think you meant to say they aspire to be professional victims...?

[Agravan]

i think you meant to say aspire to be professional victims...
Product of the liberal school system.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Product of the liberal school system.

Just goes to show you that there is one thing government is capable of:

Dumbing down the masses into an intellectual coma. The wool fits perfectly over the eyes of the sheep.

[Mainecoons]

Ah, now we have FIVE liberals who can't answer a simple question, although Cigar may have realized early on that pretending to target was not the same as actually doing so, and he wisely ran off. The other four however have danced their little hearts out avoiding the simple request to prove positively that post #2 on this thread is wrong.

Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, they can't?

It's not too late, lib dancers. Maybe if you put your collective wits together, you'll come up with one half wit who can answer the question.

:grin:

[Chris]

i think you meant to say they aspire to be professional victims...?

Attain, aspire, liberals fail to succeed at trying to be professional victims.

TO me it's the entire oppressor/oppressed view that fails.

[Chris]

Just goes to show you that there is one thing government is capable of:

Dumbing down the masses into an intellectual coma. The wool fits perfectly over the eyes of the sheep.

"...there's no success like failure. And that failure's no success at all."

~Bob Dylan

[Ransom]

Liberal groups don't attain to be professional victims like tea party groups do. They also don't have a not so hidden agenda to blow every perceived slight into some ridiculous conspiracy theory like Chris does.

Bears don't shit in the woods but rather sit on porcelin and use a beday too huh Marie?

[Mainecoons]

Liberal groups don't attain to be professional victims like tea party groups do. They also don't have a not so hidden agenda to blow every perceived slight into some ridiculous conspiracy theory like Chris does.

In other words, she can't find a single one that was actually targeted for things like those hostile letters and being stalled for months on end.

Thanks Marie, for that bit of cleverly concealed candor.

:grin:

[Chris]

Nice oxymoron! :cool2:

[nic34]

Product of the liberal school system.



3027

[nic34]

3028

[Mainecoons]

It's OK, Nic, none of us really expected that you could handle even the simple question I posed.

:rofl:

[GrassrootsConservative]

3028

Nice straw man.

You can get back to the topic at hand any time you're ready.

[nic34]

Nice straw man.

You can get back to the topic at hand any time you're ready.

Nice denial on your part.... it was in response to your off topic comment.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Nice denial on your part.... it was in response to your off topic comment.

In which post did I deny anything?

I'll wait while you find that. Don't fail.

[Ravi]

How quickly the nutters forgot Sarah Palin, perhaps the most well known professional victim of all time.

[GrassrootsConservative]

How quickly the nutters forgot Sarah Palin, perhaps the most well known professional victim of all time.

Back in post 50 I invited you to post anything of actual substance.

Why haven't you done so? All I get is this little bit of unsubstantiated attack... 16 posts later?

You should feel free to learn how political debate works any time now... Once again, I'll wait.

[Mainecoons]

(removed, double post)

[Mainecoons]

This thread has certainly been interesting. First the OP which tried to confuse what the IRS has so belatedly said about targeting more than just conservative groups, with the fact that they didn't actually pull this stuff on the liberals. Then I post a source that points this out and ask any of our IRS/tyrannical government apologists here to post a list of liberal groups that actually were subjected to these harassing letters, phone calls and delays.

From then on out, it has been a feverish attempt by the liberals here to distract and derail the thread. One of them finally offers a sideways explanation that no liberals have come forwarded because they are not whiners, or something lame to that effect.

Hasn't a one of them been able to refute post #2 of this thread. In fact, basically none of them have addressed the topic at all.

I have to tell you folks that I am constantly amazed at just how lame the five liberals who have worked so hard to avoid addressing this thread and topic are. This is pretty much SOP for this group and they wonder why they are all so disrespected here.

Jillian, Marie, Nic, Junie and Cigar: Just read the quality of your work here and you will have your answer.

You are disrespected because there isn't a one of you who can carry on an intelligent discussion about issues. You have earned our disrespect and we know you wear it proudly.

[Mainecoons]

I might add that the five of you should be embarrassed to be on the same board with a high school kid and fellow liberal who puts all of you to total shame as she states, defends and argues her positions at a level so far beyond any of you that, by comparison, you all look retarded. And then we have Adelaide, a foreigner, who demonstrates he knows far more about American issues than any of you do and also makes his case at a level the five of you can only dream about.

Frankly, I can't imagine why any one of you would like to expose themselves to such an unfavorable comparison in front of a bunch of strangers.

[nic34]

Get over yourself already.

[Ravi]

This thread showcases the defeatist attitude of rightwingers. Oh, I can't succeed because (the government, liberals, that dog) won't let me succeed!!!

Liberals just pick up and regroup and go on to win.

[Chris]

How quickly the nutters forgot Sarah Palin, perhaps the most well known professional victim of all time.

Palin, a victim, lol. What about your queen of liberal "attainers" of victimhood Hillary with her vast rightwing conspiracy?

[Private Pickle]

Palin, a victim, lol. What about your queen of liberal "attainers" of victimhood Hillary with her vast rightwing conspiracy?

Don't even get me started on Pelosi, Reid or Bloomberg...

[Chris]

This thread showcases the defeatist attitude of rightwingers. Oh, I can't succeed because (the government, liberals, that dog) won't let me succeed!!!

Liberals just pick up and regroup and go on to win.

Distraction 3.

Marie, you do realize the thread was started by a progressive like you.

[Ravi]

Distraction 3.

Marie, you do realize the thread was started by a progressive like you.How exactly does that change my point?

[Mainecoons]

It doesn't. Your point is inept and inane and you haven't offered a shred of proof to back it up. Obviously, none of you can explain the lack of actual targeting of the liberal groups so you've just made fools of yourselves for 8 pages.

Nice work.

[Mainecoons]

Get over yourself already.

Thanks for demonstrating the accuracy of my assessment. Once again.

:grin:

[Chris]

How exactly does that change my point?

It's liberals who see things in terms of victims of oppressors, not conservatives or libertarians.

What you managed to do was hoist your own petard.

[Ravi]

It's liberals who see things in terms of victims of oppressors, not conservatives or libertarians.

What you managed to do was hoist your own petard.Right. That's why Palin won top Professional Victim. You don't get out much, do you?

[Mainecoons]

Still dodging the topic, eh?

Do you have any idea how lame this looks and how it reflects on you?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Right. That's why Palin won top Professional Victim. You don't get out much, do you?

30 POSTS AGO I ASKED YOU FOR SOMETHING SOLID.

UNLESS YOU PLAN TO DO THAT SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Read post 50. I'm sick of you dodging the topic.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Every time a black Liberal makes a comment towards the fact that they are black or whatever, they are playing the race card, a very sinister form of victimization.

3026

See these quotes? Most professional victim right here.

"That's just how white folks will do you."

:biglaugh: he's trying to say he's a victim of racism.

Please do find me one single tea party quote that shows victimization.

I'll be waiting for a long time, I imagine.

I DEMAND A RESPONSE TO THIS, MARIE. NO MORE DODGING.

This whole forum is tired of it.

[Chris]

Right. That's why Palin won top Professional Victim. You don't get out much, do you?

Right, an award conjured up by a leftwinger, Schaeffer at NYT, who else but a liberal would even think in those terms. You're really stretching this latest distraction to the limit.

Thanks for another personal insult, marie.

[Mainecoons]

Let me just apologize to the rest of you for calling this group out. GC put it well and I believe he speaks for the majority of this board when he says we're tired of them and the kind of disruption and pure nonsense they've posted on this thread that deserved serious discussion. When I asked them for their proof, I was very serious and would have appreciated some verification that these IRS crimes against the public were actually more broad and liberals are as outraged by them as we are. But what I am seeing is that liberals are very happy the IRS targeted the Tea Party and they aren't outraged at all. In fact, they seem determined to lie and mislead about it.

I want to think the Chloe and Adelaide who I cited earlier are more the norm than the exception but when I look at this five, I really begin to wonder.

[Cigar]

I DEMAND A RESPONSE TO THIS, MARIE. NO MORE DODGING.

This whole forum is tired of it.

What idiot put you in charge?

[jillian]

I DEMAND A RESPONSE TO THIS, MARIE. NO MORE DODGING.

This whole forum is tired of it.

what is it you're asking? your "question" looks like a rant.

and i don't think you speak for anyone but yourself.

[Chris]

More off-topic distractions.

[jillian]

Right, an award conjured up by a leftwinger, Schaeffer at NYT, who else but a liberal would even think in those terms. You're really stretching this latest distraction to the limit.

Thanks for another personal insult, marie.

more off topic ad homs

[GrassrootsConservative]

what is it you're asking? your "question" looks like a rant.

and i don't think you speak for anyone but yourself.

I have seen several other posters express frustration at that particular poster for being off-topic and dodgy.

It's not me speaking for them, it's me paying attention, an ability you should learn as soon as you can.

[GrassrootsConservative]

more off topic ad homs

Please point out the ad hom in that post.

[jillian]

I have seen several other posters express frustration at that particular poster for being off-topic and dodgy.

It's not me speaking for them, it's me paying attention, an ability you should learn as soon as you can.

'several other posters' is not "the board".. they are chris and his cheerleaders.

again, don't insult me.... i wasn't rude to you. that seems to be a problem for you. and given that, it's not surprising you don't get the discussion you *say* you want, but do nothing to foster.

and i frankly, didn't understand your question because it was buried in a rant.

so if you'd like to clarify and keep a civil tongue.... go for it.

[jillian]

Please point out the ad hom in that post.

please point out what was off topic in my response to you.

thanks mucho.

i again ask you to clarify your question...

still waiting.

[Chris]

Right. That's why Palin won top Professional Victim. You don't get out much, do you?


Right, an award conjured up by a leftwinger, Schaeffer at NYT, who else but a liberal would even think in those terms. You're really stretching this latest distraction to the limit.

Thanks for another personal insult, marie.


more off topic ad homs

I agree, marie's ad hom strayed from the topic. Thanks!

[Chris]

'several other posters' is not "the board".. they are chris and his cheerleaders.

again, don't insult me.... i wasn't rude to you. that seems to be a problem for you. and given that, it's not surprising you don't get the discussion you *say* you want, but do nothing to foster.

and i frankly, didn't understand your question because it was buried in a rant.

so if you'd like to clarify and keep a civil tongue.... go for it.

The posters grassroots referred to was not me, jillian, but those like you who engage in personal insults.

[GrassrootsConservative]

please point out what was off topic in my response to you.

thanks mucho.

i again ask you to clarify your question...

still waiting.

Which response are you talking about? Just give me the post number and I'll clarify everything.

[Chris]

more off topic ad homs


Please point out the ad hom in that post.


please point out what was off topic in my response to you.

thanks mucho.

i again ask you to clarify your question...

still waiting.

He was asking about what you said jillian.

[jillian]

Which response are you talking about? Just give me the post number and I'll clarify everything.

i asked you a question in post 87 as i was, and am still, trying to clarify your question.

in post 88 it was suggested that i was somehow off topic in asking for such clarification.

regardless, i would still like to know what it is you are asking.

[Dr. Who]

This is a political forum. Clearly the right and the left will not agree. Definitions of proof tend to be subjective as are the interpretation of events, as no one has any empirical evidence at their disposal. Most of our sources of data tend to be provided by the media, which is known to have its own biases, both right and left. There is much information that the media is simply not privy to. Sure sometimes there are published studies etc complete with lovely graphs and statistics. Nevertheless, for every study their is a counter study. Because interpretation of data is fundamental to the exercise it is almost always affected to some degree by the bias of the interpreter. So essentially, given your sources of data, no one is ever really right and no one is ever really wrong. People identify right or left depending on their personal world view. That point of view is necessarily subjective and often emotional. So to those of you figuratively stamping your feet and demanding evidence, keep in mind that no matter what the other side provides, it is unlikely to affect your opinion. If you are very lucky and extremely persuasive you may get someone to concede a point. You will never win the argument. If you don't appreciate someone's debating style or you don't appreciate their proofs, then rather than persist in trying to get others to conform to your expectations, move on to another topic.

[jillian]

This is a political forum. Clearly the right and the left will not agree. Definitions of proof tend to be subjective as are the interpretation of events, as no one has any empirical evidence at their disposal. Most of our sources of data tend to be provided by the media, which is known to have its own biases, both right and left. There is much information that the media is simply not privy to. Sure sometimes there are published studies etc complete with lovely graphs and statistics. Nevertheless, for every study their is a counter study. Because interpretation of data is fundamental to the exercise it is almost always affected to some degree by the bias of the interpreter. So essentially, given your sources of data, no one is ever really right and no one is ever really wrong. People identify right or left depending on their personal world view. That point of view is necessarily subjective and often emotional. So to those of you figuratively stamping your feet and demanding evidence, keep in mind that no matter what the other side provides, it is unlikely to affect your opinion. If you are very lucky and extremely persuasive you may get someone to concede a point. You will never win the argument. If you don't appreciate someone's debating style or you don't appreciate their proofs, then rather than persist in trying to get others to conform to your expectations, move on to another topic.

everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

they are not entitled to their own facts

beyond that, i agree... i think in all the time i've spent on messageboards, my mind was changed about one subject... and that was by someone incredibly knowledgeable about the subject area.

[GrassrootsConservative]

i asked you a question in post 87 as i was, and am still, trying to clarify your question.

in post 88 it was suggested that i was somehow off topic in asking for such clarification.

regardless, i would still like to know what it is you are asking.

Oh, well Marie made the suggestion that people in the Tea Party were "professional victims," and the post in my quotes is me showing how Obama is the true "professional victim" and then asking them to find one solid quote or substantial evidence that anyone from the Tea Party fits her insane accusations.

She never did that, but instead just blabbered some incoherent nonsense about Sarah Palin.

[jillian]

Oh, well Marie made the suggestion that people in the Tea Party were "professional victims," and the post in my quotes is me showing how Obama is the true "professional victim" and then asking them to find one solid quote or substantial evidence that anyone from the Tea Party fits her insane accusations.

She never did that, but instead just blabbered some incoherent nonsense about Sarah Palin.

i think that is clearly her opinion. and i would suggest that she draws that opinion from what she perceives to be an excessive level of hysteria over certain issues.

i doubt she expects to convince you to join her in that opinion.

to be fair, though, i think a lot of what she calls 'victimhood' and i call hysteria is based on misinformation and the constant drum beat of people who want to profit from riling up 'the base' to the greatest extent possible.... for example... this IRS thing... it is becoming quite clear that the information released by issa and his committee left out key elements which disproved his premise. that was intended to, and did, have the effect of making the base feel threatened at the very level that concerns them most... same as the 'they want to take our guns away' types, when in reality, up until not that long ago, the NRA supported background checks and didn't perceive it as threatening at all.

so there ya go.

[Dr. Who]

30 POSTS AGO I ASKED YOU FOR SOMETHING SOLID.

UNLESS YOU PLAN TO DO THAT SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Read post 50. I'm sick of you dodging the topic.
Violation of rule #4. Please refrain from using vulgarities.

[Dr. Who]

everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

they are not entitled to their own facts

beyond that, i agree... i think in all the time i've spent on messageboards, my mind was changed about one subject... and that was by someone incredibly knowledgeable about the subject area.Of course. Which is my point in part.

[jillian]

Of course. Which is my point in part.

yes, but there was that one time...

and it was a friend who disagreed with me on most every political subject who was able to convince me. it wasn't by insults or nastiness... in fact, it was his respect in presenting his case that helped change my mind.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Violation of rule #4. Please refrain from using vulgarities.

:flipoff:

[Dr. Who]

:flipoff:Really childish. I guess you won't be happy until you're infracted? Keep it up and you'll get your wish.

[Ravi]

30 POSTS AGO I ASKED YOU FOR SOMETHING SOLID.

UNLESS YOU PLAN TO DO THAT SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Read post 50. I'm sick of you dodging the topic.
If you have a question, ask it again. I won't search for your post. As for dodging questions, why did you whine about my characterization of "conservatives" in the other thread when you turned out to fit the characterization to a tee?

[Ravi]

Let me just apologize to the rest of you for calling this group out. GC put it well and I believe he speaks for the majority of this board when he says we're tired of them and the kind of disruption and pure nonsense they've posted on this thread that deserved serious discussion. When I asked them for their proof, I was very serious and would have appreciated some verification that these IRS crimes against the public were actually more broad and liberals are as outraged by them as we are. But what I am seeing is that liberals are very happy the IRS targeted the Tea Party and they aren't outraged at all. In fact, they seem determined to lie and mislead about it.

I want to think the Chloe and Adelaide who I cited earlier are more the norm than the exception but when I look at this five, I really begin to wonder.
I am very happy the IRS targets all groups that apply for this status no matter what their political affiliation. That is THEIR JOB. Now of course the hyperpartisan whiners will force the IRS to stop doing their job and any blowhard will be free to profit at the expense of taxpayers.

[zelmo1234]

I am very happy the IRS targets all groups that apply for this status no matter what their political affiliation. That is THEIR JOB. Now of course the hyperpartisan whiners will force the IRS to stop doing their job and any blowhard will be free to profit at the expense of taxpayers.

Can you show me ONE liberal policital group that has not been approved or denied for more than a year?

They actually have an approval time of less than 3 months.

How about the questions on the content of your prayers and the book that you read? List of friends that you comunicate with? You comfortambe with the IRS trying to gain this information?

Now if this policy is OK with YOu it is OK with me, because I beleive that we ahve a good shot at a Republican Preisdent. In then we can use the IRS to investigate Liberals and Liberals usually have tax issues, and we can put tons of them in jail! You see when you decide to use a government agency as you SS and to inflict political damage on your opponates, you usually have to pay the price in the future!

[Chris]

This is a political forum. Clearly the right and the left will not agree. Definitions of proof tend to be subjective as are the interpretation of events, as no one has any empirical evidence at their disposal. Most of our sources of data tend to be provided by the media, which is known to have its own biases, both right and left. There is much information that the media is simply not privy to. Sure sometimes there are published studies etc complete with lovely graphs and statistics. Nevertheless, for every study their is a counter study. Because interpretation of data is fundamental to the exercise it is almost always affected to some degree by the bias of the interpreter. So essentially, given your sources of data, no one is ever really right and no one is ever really wrong. People identify right or left depending on their personal world view. That point of view is necessarily subjective and often emotional. So to those of you figuratively stamping your feet and demanding evidence, keep in mind that no matter what the other side provides, it is unlikely to affect your opinion. If you are very lucky and extremely persuasive you may get someone to concede a point. You will never win the argument. If you don't appreciate someone's debating style or you don't appreciate their proofs, then rather than persist in trying to get others to conform to your expectations, move on to another topic.

All of that is true but let me add two points.

One, those stamping their feet with insulting distractions ought to be equally addressed. It adds nothing to the discussion.

Two, correct, no one ever wins an argument, especially not on the Internet, but arguing your ideas and opinions the best you can does matter.

[Chris]

everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

they are not entitled to their own facts

beyond that, i agree... i think in all the time i've spent on messageboards, my mind was changed about one subject... and that was by someone incredibly knowledgeable about the subject area.

See I find that an odd thing to say as I find my mind being changed constantly by engaging in discussions like these. We learn by being wrong, not by being right all the time.

[jillian]

See I find that an odd thing to say as I find my mind being changed constantly by engaging in discussions like these. We learn by being wrong, not by being right all the time.

very funny coming from you.

[Chris]

i think that is clearly her opinion. and i would suggest that she draws that opinion from what she perceives to be an excessive level of hysteria over certain issues.

i doubt she expects to convince you to join her in that opinion.

to be fair, though, i think a lot of what she calls 'victimhood' and i call hysteria is based on misinformation and the constant drum beat of people who want to profit from riling up 'the base' to the greatest extent possible.... for example... this IRS thing... it is becoming quite clear that the information released by issa and his committee left out key elements which disproved his premise. that was intended to, and did, have the effect of making the base feel threatened at the very level that concerns them most... same as the 'they want to take our guns away' types, when in reality, up until not that long ago, the NRA supported background checks and didn't perceive it as threatening at all.

so there ya go.

Hmmm, where's the hysteria? And where's the cry of victimhood? Where do you and marie see this? You speak of Issa, OK, but he's not Tea Party. What's the value of an opinion you can't or refuse to link to reality somehow? Remember, marie's accusation concerned Palin, who didn't claim to be a victim, some liberal NYT writer claimed it.

[Mainecoons]

Still waiting for that list.

:rofl:

[Chris]

Still waiting for that list.

:rofl:

You may have to wait till hell freezes over.

http://i.snag.gy/p7SDM.jpg

And then some...

[nic34]

The posters grassroots referred to was not me, jillian, but those like you who engage in personal insults.

Like maincoons and grassroots et al?

[Mainecoons]

Nic, you just continue to prove my point with every post you put up on this thread. Thank you.

[nic34]

Yes, and again you prove day in and day out that you are the most talented "insulter" on this board. Thanks.

[Mainecoons]

You're welcome. If the shoe fits, wear it. I'm glad to see that you do wear it with pride.

Or was that just whining because you've been outed so effectively?

:rofl:

[Chris]

Like maincoons and grassroots et al?

While I don't think GRC intended it, yes, to me, if and when they do yes, when anyone does.

[Mainecoons]

The IRS in the news again:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57591030/probe-irs-contractor-won-up-to-$500-million-in-questionable-bids/

Yes, after 12 pages of utter nonsense and frantic avoidance of a simple question, I intended to call the five of them out and I did so. No apologies for doing so, it is long overdue on this board.

[Chris]

Some support for your point, maine:


The IRS didn’t only target conservatives. At least, that’s what Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee now want you to believe.
On Monday, the Democrats on the committee released 15 lists of “BOLO” (“Be On the Look Out”) terms, which include “Progessive” and “Occupy” in addition to “Tea Party” and “9/12.” The implication is that the IRS set its sights not just on conservative groups, but also on liberal ones.

...




Tea Party
Progressives


On a BOLO
Yes
Yes


Had donors threatened
Yes
No evidence


Had confidential information leaked
Yes
No evidence


Sent inappropriate and intrusive questions
Yes
No evidence


Had applications delayed for over 2 years and counting
Yes
No evidence


Were targeted by the IRS, according to TIGTA
Yes
No evidence




Table courtesy of the House Ways and Means Committee Republican Press Office.

@ Democrats’ BOLO Bonanza (http://spectator.org/archives/2013/06/26/questions-for-the-irs)

[Mainecoons]

That is the point here. Weeks after the first revelations, those obviously honest IRS folks show up and claim that their policy actually included the leftist groups, but when you start looking for same that was subjected to harsh letters, unfriendly investigations and stone walling, strangely you can't find any.

Nevertheless, I'm still waiting for our cadre of five liberal geniuses here to fill in those "no evidence" blanks for us.

Thirteen pages later, still waiting.

[Chris]

How long can you hold your breath? :-)

[Mainecoons]

Nope, they've got a new thread to disrupt, the one about how their party is now trying to pass an amnesty bill that will guarantee that still more citizens lose their jobs to immigrants.

That should keep them busy for a while. :rofl:

[nic34]

Go back to bed coonz, it's over.

The IRS scandal is dead—long live the IRS scandal!

Almost every conservative columnist who spent the last month writing the obviously-false narrative that conservative nonprofit groups were specifically targeted and scrutinized by the Internal Revenue Service (for the most nefarious of reasons) was just proven wrong.

The Associated Press reported today that an obtained IRS document showed that in addition to extra tax exemption scrutiny for groups using the terms “Tea Party,” they were looking at nonprofits and PACs that used the terms, “Occupy,” “Progressive,” “Healthcare legislation,” “Newspaper Entities,” “Paying National Debt,” and others—which means the IRS aren’t the liberal overlords as previously thought, but rather the equal opportunity annoyances we’ve always known them to be.

Surprised? Don’t be. This information is not new. It’s just reinforcing what conservative groups and Republicans on the Hill have been trying to keep quiet, as the scare-mongering reached new heights of political positioning which, even with today’s revelations, aren’t necessarily going anywhere.

http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2013/06/25/the-irs-scandal-is-dead%E2%80%94long-live-the-irs-scandal/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-irs-scandal-is-dead%25e2%2580%2594long-live-the-irs-scandal

[Chris]

Go back to bed coonz, it's over.

The IRS scandal is dead—long live the IRS scandal!

Almost every conservative columnist who spent the last month writing the obviously-false narrative that conservative nonprofit groups were specifically targeted and scrutinized by the Internal Revenue Service (for the most nefarious of reasons) was just proven wrong.

The Associated Press reported today that an obtained IRS document showed that in addition to extra tax exemption scrutiny for groups using the terms “Tea Party,” they were looking at nonprofits and PACs that used the terms, “Occupy,” “Progressive,” “Healthcare legislation,” “Newspaper Entities,” “Paying National Debt,” and others—which means the IRS aren’t the liberal overlords as previously thought, but rather the equal opportunity annoyances we’ve always known them to be.

Surprised? Don’t be. This information is not new. It’s just reinforcing what conservative groups and Republicans on the Hill have been trying to keep quiet, as the scare-mongering reached new heights of political positioning which, even with today’s revelations, aren’t necessarily going anywhere.

http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2013/06/25/the-irs-scandal-is-dead%E2%80%94long-live-the-irs-scandal/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-irs-scandal-is-dead%25e2%2580%2594long-live-the-irs-scandal

No, It's Not Time To Move On From The IRS Scandal (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062513-661365-irs-flagged-liberal-groups-but-only-harassed-conservative-ones.htm#ixzz2XKs0ieyf)


In addition, the evidence is plain that the IRS did, in fact, single out conservative groups for delay and harassment in the run-up to the 2012 elections.

As USA Today reported, the IRS kept Tea Party applications on ice for 27 months after agents were first told to flag them in early 2010. At the same time, it approved dozens of applications from liberal groups with names like "Progress Florida," some as quickly as nine months.

Plus, when the House held hearings to let tax-exempt-seeking groups share stories of IRS harassment, Democrats couldn't scrounge up any liberal group to make such a claim. Nor did the IRS ever leak information on liberal groups to their political opponents.

"Progressive" may have been on the BOLO list, nic, but there's no evidence they were targeted.

[nic34]

chris, the point is the percieved vicitmhood....

From the op link:

As far as federal scandals go, IRS-gate was pretty small potatoes. Today’s revelation (if you want to call it that) isn’t going to do much to change the line of thinking that led to the outrageous outrage in the first place. Whether in the media or federal agencies, conservatives have long-relied on the basic idea that they are discriminated against worst of all in the U.S. For a while, IRS-gate reinforced that. Tomorrow, something else will.

[Ravi]

chris, the point is the percieved vicitmhood....

From the op link:

As far as federal scandals go, IRS-gate was pretty small potatoes. Today’s revelation (if you want to call it that) isn’t going to do much to change the line of thinking that led to the outrageous outrage in the first place. Whether in the media or federal agencies, conservatives have long-relied on the basic idea that they are discriminated against worst of all in the U.S. For a while, IRS-gate reinforced that. Tomorrow, something else will.

Exactly.

[Chris]

chris, the point is the percieved vicitmhood....

From the op link:

As far as federal scandals go, IRS-gate was pretty small potatoes. Today’s revelation (if you want to call it that) isn’t going to do much to change the line of thinking that led to the outrageous outrage in the first place. Whether in the media or federal agencies, conservatives have long-relied on the basic idea that they are discriminated against worst of all in the U.S. For a while, IRS-gate reinforced that. Tomorrow, something else will.

But the perceiving is being done by liberals. The facts that some Tea Parties raised the issue is not crying victim, that's liberal interpretation. Same as with Palin, she didn't claim to be a victim, that was a liberal writer at the NYT.

That's just how liberals tend to frame things, in terms of oppressor and oppressed.

[Mainecoons]

Let us know when you are able to fill in those "no evidence" blanks there, nickie boy.

:grin:

[Chris]

These, nic:






Tea Party
Progressives


On a BOLO
Yes
Yes


Had donors threatened
Yes
No evidence


Had confidential information leaked
Yes
No evidence


Sent inappropriate and intrusive questions
Yes
No evidence


Had applications delayed for over 2 years and counting
Yes
No evidence


Were targeted by the IRS, according to TIGTA
Yes
No evidence





Table courtesy of the House Ways and Means Committee Republican Press Office.[/QUOTE]

[Ravi]

Why on earth would you expect anyone to take your hyperpartisan hit piece seriously?

[nic34]

They're victims, marie, remember? And there is NOOOOOO evidence that it was bi-partisan. They said so. :laugh:

[Chris]

Why on earth would you expect anyone to take your hyperpartisan hit piece seriously?

So all you've got is ad hom against an article exposing facts you cannot argue with?

[Chris]

They're victims, marie, remember? And there is NOOOOOO evidence that it was bi-partisan. They said so. :laugh:

There you go, evidence it's liberals crying about victims. There is evidence that progressives were on the BOLO list, nic. What evidence do you have to fill in the no evidence cells of the table above, nic?

[Ravi]

So all you've got is ad hom against an article exposing facts you cannot argue with?I perused their website. It is nothing but a partisan bullshit factory, so no I'm not even going to bother debunking it. Maybe you should worry about your critical thinking skills as you seem only to be able to believe what you want to believe.

[Chris]

I perused their website. It is nothing but a partisan bullshit factory, so no I'm not even going to bother debunking it. Maybe you should worry about your critical thinking skills as you seem only to be able to believe what you want to believe.

However, ad hom does not debunk the message, marie. And I'm not the topic.

[Agravan]

I perused their website. It is nothing but a partisan bullshit factory, so no I'm not even going to bother debunking it. Maybe you should worry about your critical thinking skills as you seem only to be able to believe what you want to believe.
It is nothing but a partisan bullshit factory, so no I'm not even going to bother debunking it.
Liberal translation: "The site does not reinforce my position so it's a partisan BS factory. I'm not going to debunk it because I have nothing, as usual."

[nic34]

There you go, evidence it's liberals crying about victims. There is evidence that progressives were on the BOLO list, nic. What evidence do you have to fill in the no evidence cells of the table above, nic?

You mean this non-partisan source?


Table courtesy of the House Ways and Means Committee Republican Press Office.



:laugh:

[Chris]

You mean this non-partisan source?



:laugh:

And such ad hom as that fills in the no evidence cells of this table, nic?




Tea Party
Progressives


On a BOLO
Yes
Yes


Had donors threatened
Yes
No evidence


Had confidential information leaked
Yes
No evidence


Sent inappropriate and intrusive questions
Yes
No evidence


Had applications delayed for over 2 years and counting
Yes
No evidence


Were targeted by the IRS, according to TIGTA
Yes
No evidence






So far no one has attempted to fill in any.

[Agravan]

And such ad hom as that fills in the no evidence cells of this table, nic?




Tea Party

Progressives



On a BOLO

Yes

Yes



Had donors threatened

Yes

No evidence



Had confidential information leaked

Yes

No evidence



Sent inappropriate and intrusive questions

Yes

No evidence



Had applications delayed for over 2 years and counting

Yes

No evidence



Were targeted by the IRS, according to TIGTA

Yes

No evidence






So far no one has attempted to fill in any.

Nor will they.

[Mainecoons]

(WASHINGTON TIMES) The American Center for Law and Justice (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/american-center-for-law-and-justice/) amended its lawsuit in federal court against the Internal Revenue Service (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/internal-revenue-service/) to add another 16 tea party and conservative groups on its plaintiff list — bringing the total of aggrieved to 41.The suit, alleging the IRS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/internal-revenue-service/) violated constitutional law with its secret targeting of conservative groups, was initially filed on May 20 with 25 plaintiffs. But more have come forward.
“The floodgates opened after we filed our initial lawsuit,” said Jay Sekulow (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jay-alan-sekulow/), the chief counsel for the ACLJ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/american-center-for-law-and-justice/), in a press release. “We have been contacted by many additional organizations that have been unlawfully targeted by the IRS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/internal-revenue-service/) — revealing that this unconstitutional scheme was pervasive and damaging.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/lawsuit-against-irs-grows-to-41-groups/#ApIg7hidSe6AEwgQ.99

It's up to 41, and they can't even come up with ONE.

:rofl:

[Chris]

Nor will they, quote unquote.

[Ravi]

You got your answer, you just didn't like it.

[Mainecoons]

Once again, Marie, you've made yourself the fool.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/


The IRS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/internal-revenue-service/)‘ auditor told Congress (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/) this week that it stands by its determination that conservative groups were uniquely singled out for special scrutiny by the tax agency, rebutting Democrats’ contention that liberal groups also were targeted.

The Treasury Department (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-the-treasury/)’s inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) sent a letter Wednesday to congressional Democrats telling them that while several liberal groups may have gotten extra scrutiny, the IRS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/internal-revenue-service/) didn’t necessarily target those — but it did do so for conservative groups.

“TIGTA concluded that inappropriate criteria were used to identify potential political cases for extra scrutiny — specifically, the criteria listed in our audit report. From our audit work, we did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled “Progressives,” were used by the IRS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/internal-revenue-service/) to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 timeframe we audited,” Inspector General J. Russell George (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/j-russell-george/) said.

He said that while 30 percent of groups that had the word “progressive” in their name were given extra scrutiny, 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their names were pulled out for strict scrutiny, which involved what the IRS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/internal-revenue-service/) since has said were invasive and inappropriate questions.

This guy found 6 progressives out of nearly 300 groups targeted. Marie and the rest of the know-nothings here found ZERO.

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2013/06/13/6_132013_itin-140908201_s160x107.jpg?6ac50f60a459a9d02e0f8fbcfa1 0b77b4a677545

I suppose you're going to tell us the IRS auditor is lying?

:rofl:

[Mainecoons]

You got your answer, you just didn't like it.

We got another one of your half-assed unsupported opinions. We didn't dislike it, it was too stupid and desperate to dislike. I think most of us took it as some sort of lame joke.

[nic34]

Should I make fun of the washingtontimes source?

Nawwww....

[Mainecoons]

IG J. Russell George: Six
The five stooges here: ZERO

As usual, a number of reports confirming this and as usual, you didn't bother to look.

Amazing that as bad as you got punked on this thread, you keep coming back for more.

Beat the hell out of that dead horse, there, Cochise! Pretty soon he'll go faster.

:rofl:

[nic34]

Does this forum really provide you with that much pleasure....? You need to get out.

[Mainecoons]

Since you're only here during working hours, maybe we should suggest that you do your job instead of posting on this board? Are you one of Cigar's "employees?" If so, is it your job to follow him around and try to make him look good with nonsense one-liners?

More likely, I suspect you're a government "worker."

I'm retired, what's your excuse?

Just curious.

:grin:

[zelmo1234]

Inspector General says No non tea party groups were targeted for review.

[Cigar]

Inspector General says No non tea party groups were targeted for review.

Link :grin:

[nic34]

Since you're only here during working hours, maybe we should suggest that you do your job instead of posting on this board? Are you one of Cigar's "employees?" If so, is it your job to follow him around and try to make him look good with nonsense one-liners?

More likely, I suspect you're a government "worker."

I'm retired, what's your excuse?

Just curious.

:grin:

My hours are not your business, but I've already stated what they were when I came here.

City govts. are clients. You know, we make it so you can actually drink the water in THIS country, take a bath and not live in your own filth as they do in some third world countries.....

[Cigar]

Since you're only here during working hours, maybe we should suggest that you do your job instead of posting on this board? Are you one of Cigar's "employees?" If so, is it your job to follow him around and try to make him look good with nonsense one-liners?

More likely, I suspect you're a government "worker."

I'm retired, what's your excuse?

Just curious.

:grin:

I do whatever the Fuck I want to do ... everyday, all day, each day until I don't want to anymore.

... and the last thing you want from me, is for me to be focused and fixated on you.

Remember ... you say you're retired ... so relax, enjoy your retirement and don't Fuck with me.

That's my public service message for the day, the week, the year, so be smart and take the advice.

[Chris]

Link :grin:

Liberal groups got less scrutiny than Tea Party (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/27/ways-and-means-irs-werfel-tea-party/2461573/)

And another: IRS APOLOGIZES FOR TARGETING TEA PARTY GROUPS (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups)

[Cigar]

Liberal groups got less scrutiny than Tea Party (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/27/ways-and-means-irs-werfel-tea-party/2461573/)

And another: IRS APOLOGIZES FOR TARGETING TEA PARTY GROUPS (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups)

Not surprised ... who wanted to be more visible ... Guns and all. :laugh:

Well ... they got noticed. :wink:

[Chris]

Not surprised ... who wanted to be more visible ... Guns and all. :laugh:

Well ... they got noticed. :wink:

IRS is not supposed to be political, cigar, that's likely why they have apologized. I say shut them down.

[Agravan]

I do whatever the Fuck I want to do ... everyday, all day, each day until I don't want to anymore.

... and the last thing you want from me, is for me to be focused and fixated on you.

Remember ... you say you're retired ... so relax, enjoy your retirement and don't Fuck with me.

That's my public service message for the day, the week, the year, so be smart and take the advice.

Oh my, someone got mommy to help him put on his Super-Duper man panties again.
You feeling like a grown up tough-guy now, Cigar?

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4653954609186994&pid=1.7&w=142&h=164&c=7&rs=1

[nic34]

IRS is not supposed to be political, cigar, that's likely why they have apologized. I say shut them down.

Not so fast.... they owe me money! :grin:

[Chris]

Not so fast.... they owe me money! :grin:

Oh, ok, I'll wait. :smiley:

[zelmo1234]

Link :grin:

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/06/watchdog_groups_says_no_proof.html

[zelmo1234]

I do whatever the Fuck I want to do ... everyday, all day, each day until I don't want to anymore.

... and the last thing you want from me, is for me to be focused and fixated on you.

Remember ... you say you're retired ... so relax, enjoy your retirement and don't Fuck with me.

That's my public service message for the day, the week, the year, so be smart and take the advice.

I do the same so can I F^&% with you? :)

[Mainecoons]

My hours are not your business, but I've already stated what they were when I came here.

City govts. are clients. You know, we make it so you can actually drink the water in THIS country, take a bath and not live in your own filth as they do in some third world countries.....

Ah, you're a government worker. Hard at work making the water drinkable while you post on this board during working hours. I was licensed as a PE in three states, MD, VA and NM, for process and treatment plant design, and worked as a subcontractor in a whole bunch more as a process engineer. And you?

Care to share your professional registration with us? Unless they dumbed down the PE license test a whole bunch I can't imagine how you could have passed the economics part of it.

Guess what genius, I probably designed more water treatment than you'll see in 5 lifetimes of riding your dead horse.

Are you another unfireable, equal opportunity hack?

Just curious. :rofl:

[lynn]

Everyone is focused on the IRS and its bias decisions regarding giving tax exempt status but know one is telling us some examples of what each of the political organizations purpose was that were seeking tax exempt status. For example, if I wanted to start a fund raiser for the purpose of replacing our government with another that isn't based on corruption on my application for a tax exempt status and I met all the criteria to be tax exempt, don't you think my objective in reaching this goal would be a big political issue on many different levels and have an affect on many different people with their own bias opinion?

[patrickt]

Everyone is focused on the IRS and its bias decisions regarding giving tax exempt status but know one is telling us some examples of what each of the political organizations purpose was that were seeking tax exempt status. For example, if I wanted to start a fund raiser for the purpose of replacing our government with another that isn't based on corruption on my application for a tax exempt status and I met all the criteria to be tax exempt, don't you think my objective in reaching this goal would be a big political issue on many different levels and have an affect on many different people with their own bias opinion?

If 5% of the people paying income tax were black but 80% of the audits were with black individuals or black-owned companies would you be asking what the specifics were in each case? I don't think so. A few hundred conservative groups and six liberal groups and you want details?

I wonder what the chances are a group organized by Sen. Clinton and funded by George Soros would get special negative attention?

[Mainecoons]

Give that victimhood is a central tenet of liberalism, you can bet that if even these six liberal organizations got those insulting letters and were delayed or declined arbitrarily, they'd be screaming to the roof tops and filing their own class action suits.

You may have noticed by now that ZERO of them are doing either.

I'm just curious as to how much longer our liberal geniuses are going to keep trying to ride this dead horse. I will say, their posting in this regard is a graphic demonstration of what leftist gullibility looks like. All these IRS liars have to do is claim they scrutinized liberal groups and they buy it, hook line and sinker. This is a great demonstration also of the blind adherence and worship of government by the left.

IG George blew their argument into shreds, unfortunately.

I'll give one of them an "A" for the most disingenuous attempt at justifying the obvious, by claiming that the conservatives are the ones who love victimhood and that the liberals were noble stoics here.


Too funny. :grin:

[Chris]

Everyone is focused on the IRS and its bias decisions regarding giving tax exempt status but know one is telling us some examples of what each of the political organizations purpose was that were seeking tax exempt status. For example, if I wanted to start a fund raiser for the purpose of replacing our government with another that isn't based on corruption on my application for a tax exempt status and I met all the criteria to be tax exempt, don't you think my objective in reaching this goal would be a big political issue on many different levels and have an affect on many different people with their own bias opinion?

San Antonio Tea Party: We were targeted by IRS (http://www.kens5.com/news/San-Antonio-Tea-Party-We-were-targeted-by-IRS-207462011.html)


Members of the San Antonio Tea Party say they know first hand about the extra scrutiny the IRS has admitted to giving conservative groups applying for non-profit status in recent years.

George Rodriguez, former president of the San Antonio Tea Party, said they felt something wasn’t right when the IRS confronted them in 2011.

“We did not think the government would take these types of steps,” he said.

Rodriguez said the IRS started asking personal questions, like Facebook contacts and e-mail addresses for members of the party.

After a while, this cost the local Tea Party about half their members, Rodriguez said.

“We had a lot of folks within the movement that dropped out because of fear. Because they were afraid to say anything. Because they were afraid of association,” Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez said it ended up costing the San Antonio Tea Party several thousand dollars to hire attorneys and accountants to deal with months worth of audits and questions.
...

[lynn]

A tax exempt status means to me that if you are going to request one, it shouldn't go against the grain that threatens the government's ability to continue screwing over its citizens. Lobbyist who obtain tax exemption status that fund raise to get laws on the books that have an affect on the general public rights to privacy and freedom to make their own choices should not be given a tax exempt status. If fact I don't think any political organization has the right to tax exemption nor to I think a goodwill who pays their CEO a million dollars a year should be tax exempt.

The only one that should have this right to tax exempt status are church organizations since they have a great deal of influence over a large group of people and could create a revolution very easily and this would create chaos in society. A tax exemption is a bribe from the government that you agree to not get involved in political issues that would cause a great deal of problems for them.