Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

IRS IG Report: Targeting Conservatives Began In 2010


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#76 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,081 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 02:59 AM

is it true that the only groups that were actually denied anything due to this increased scrutiny were liberal?



#77 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,483 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:29 AM

hadn't heard that, a bunch of conservative groups coming out of the wood work to say they were discriminated against tho (and they might have been)



#78 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,329 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 10:11 AM

Listening to the hearings is hilarious...

 

If you were to listen to republicans...they can't get Stephen Miller to answer much of anything because of his insistence of making a nuanced response to questions that are being setup to be a Yes or No response. 

 

If you were to listen to democrats...it's because of Citizen's United, lack of clear regulatory guidelines, or something other than partisan targetting. 



#79 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,329 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 10:12 AM

Rep. Roskam just tore Miller a new a-hole...



#80 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,031 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 02:09 PM

http://www.examiner....f-their-prayers

 


The IRS asked a pro-life group the 'content of their prayers'

 

 

 

Wut?



#81 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,331 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 11:50 PM

Looking like the IRS is not the only one getting in on the action

 

http://blog.chron.co...-true-the-vote/

 

I suppose they just had it coming though



#82 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,367 posts
  • LocationConcord, NC

Posted 20 May 2013 - 12:46 AM

As far as I'm concerned, NPO's with tax exempt status shouldn't be allowed to have political agenda's at all, if they do then they shouldn't be tax exempt or even in consideration for one. If you name your NPO after a political party or something to do with voting then expect to get hit with audits quite often. Don't call it profiling because you were the one stupid enough to make that mistake

 

 

Now as far as this scandal, which really isn't a scandal. The reason it's not is because this is a known practice of the IRS, it's an effective practice that's been done before. Anyone in politics knows this type of stuff goes on and it didn't bother them till they could get something out of it.  The only thing this does is show the desperation of republicans as they know they are losing the edge in major states. There's nothing to see here as it's just another attempt by republican's to get rid of Obama Care and it will fail just like the other attempts before it did. After all of this falls by the wayside the IRS will be back to it's old tricks under the next president and so forth. 



#83 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,375 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 20 May 2013 - 07:21 AM

 

Now as far as this scandal, which really isn't a scandal. The reason it's not is because this is a known practice of the IRS, it's an effective practice that's been done before. 

 the problem with your statement is that the same arguement could be made about any profiling.

 

Profiling is either right for everyone or wrong for everyone....we can't pick and chose where it suits our political views.



#84 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,367 posts
  • LocationConcord, NC

Posted 20 May 2013 - 09:10 AM

 the problem with your statement is that the same arguement could be made about any profiling.

 

Profiling is either right for everyone or wrong for everyone....we can't pick and chose where it suits our political views.

 

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's not a scandal. If it was a big deal this would have been brought up by the mainstream media before now. If it was a major problem the stunts pulled by the IRS would've been outed to the national media back then. If it wasn't a problem for Republicans then, it isn't now.

 

Which means that this is just another thing that the republican party is doing to try and gain a footing against the Democratic party.  God knows they need all the extra footing they can get nationally as the last two campaigns they've ran have been jokes at best.  I'm not really a member of either party myself, so it doesn't bother me a bunch. I just think it's funny that a practice that's been used by president's in the past. 



#85 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,177 posts

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:14 AM

 the problem with your statement is that the same arguement could be made about any profiling.

 

Profiling is either right for everyone or wrong for everyone....we can't pick and chose where it suits our political views.

 

 

 

I know what you are trying to say, but by this logic intelligence shouldn't flag emails that contain the words "bomb the President" it should just pull emails at random.  Otherwise you would consider that profiling.

 

There is a difference between profiling and creating trigger words that raise red flags.

 

The problem here isn't that they used trigger words such as "tea party".  After all, the entities in question are not supposed to be political in nature, but having the name tea party is a politically charged word. 

 

The issue is whether the trigger words were evenly created to prevent certain groups from getting uneven scrutiny.  It appears that this was not the case and conservative groups were disproportionally targeted for increased scrutiny.

 

The way some in the media have portrayed this is that the IRS was actively trying to hurt conservative groups, when the truth is (at least according to the Inspector General) that the conservative groups were targeted more as a byproduct of a faulty screening process.

 

In other words, the question is was there an intent to target conservative groups, or was the targeting an incidental byproduct of uneven triggers.

 

One is malicious, the other is incompetence.  The Inspector General claims it was incompetence.  Either way it is bad for the IRS.



#86 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,329 posts

Posted 20 May 2013 - 12:53 PM

You're focused on a single aspect of this Teeray.

 

And it seems today we find out that WH counsel knew about this weeks ago.  So either THEY held off telling their boss...or he's lying to the American people when he found about it via the nightly news.  queue Jon Stewart's laugh/snark comment



#87 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,329 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:35 AM

http://www.c-span.org/

 

Go watch.



#88 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,329 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:14 AM

Seems Obama administration modus operandi was using the IRS even as far back as 2008 to beat Hillary.

 

http://online.wsj.co...pinion_newsreel

 



#89 dos poptarts

dos poptarts

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 783 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:37 AM

Seems Obama administration modus operandi was using the IRS even as far back as 2008 to beat Hillary.

 

http://online.wsj.co...pinion_newsreel

 

Wow. Two immediate thoughts:

1) People that were loyal to Edwards and Hillary, but are in the Obama camp for political reasons only will probably start leaking other items to the press. The greatest threat to Obama has always been hubris and other Dems.

 

2) I don't see how the Obama Whitehouse can deny involvement using the IRS as a tool when they used it during the Democratic Primaries. I don't see how the program would continue w/o high level support.



#90 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,177 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 10:24 AM

The program should be investigating these 501cs.  They are not supposed to be political in nature if they are asking for tax exemption.  They just should be doing it evenly for both sides of the political spectrum.

 

What the IRS was doing investigatively is not the issue.  The issue is that their screening process unfairly targeted conservative groups.  The Inspector General and just about everyone else who works for or used to work for the IRS claim that it was a byproduct of a screening process and not partisan in nature.  Everyone who hasn't worked at the IRS or investigated the discrepancy think that a puppet master President is using trying to destroy their freedom of raising unlimited funds and not disclosing donors to try and influence elections.  Everyone know our founding fathers were pro Super Pacs /sarcasm

 

The great irony of all this is that if Congress is upset that conservative groups got unfairly targeted they are essentially admitting that these groups are political and not about general welfare, so all these groups should immediately lose tax exempt status anyway.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.