IRS Tea Party Targeting wrong

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
  • Whatever I have said in the past about the Tea Party, generally, I stand by it. Without question, not my cup of tea.

  • To the extent that the IRS targeted Tea Party organizations, conservative organizations, liberartarian organizations, etc., because they are such organizations or for any reason other than one that in fact causes it to focus on any other group, organization, etc., I think is plainly wrong, potentially illegal detrimental to and underminds sound public confidence in government.
 
I'll wait to see how this plays out. If it's like the "controversy" when DHS put out the report about right wing terrorism and it got a lot of play but the previous one on left wing terrorism was ignored, then this is nothing.
As it is, it's not a big deal since no one was denied anything and Tea Party groups,supporters and politicians have been proven more than willing to play by their own rules. With them still being a new movement, some extra initial scrutiny might be the right move.

But it should never be done with the intention of intimidation or exclusion.
 
When is the last time the media covered a socialist or communist political party being targeted by the government?

There can be two people at a Tea party event, and the media will flock to it and cover it like a major event, increasing their legitimacy.



The 'Tea' party get way too much attention in comparison to other upstart political parties. Especially when they are backed by the Koch brothers and other corporate interests.
 
Last edited:
source: Independent Underground News & Talk


While The Media Cries Foul Over IRS-Tea Party Action; NAACP Tax Audit In 2004 Was Met With Near Silence


We would all agree being subject to scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service can be an intimidating process.

Famous celebrities have been knocked down to "regular citizen" status while the IRS crosses "T's" and dot "I's" on nearly every piece of financial information. The late Redd Foxx, Sammy Davis, Jr., along with R&B crooner Ronald Isley danced a dance with the IRS and lost, just to name a few.

Yet the media is obviously are too darn busy to focus on issues facing real Americans: the high underemployment (U-6) rate of 14%, student loan debt, inadequate nature of the U.S. Housing Market, public education falling apart at the seams or the lack of savings of middle and lower economic classes in the USA. Would the corporate media actions be best described as needing another "scandal" in what would be otherwise another boring news cycle? Probably.

Either way, the momentary "buzz" is now focused on how employees at the IRS Processing Office in Cincinnati, Ohio allegedly "targeted" Tea-Party groups seeking to gain 501.c.4 tax-status exemption certification. The Conservative based organizations declare they were targeted due to a deep dislike of President Barack Obama policies, including a vehement opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

These are important facts to remember when the media "echo-chamber"seeks to push the next "Independent Counsel Investigation" lasting until 2014 or 2016 election cycle. Our media resources would lead the public to believe Americans ability to place food on the tables with Congress purposed cuts to the Food Assistance program, is not pertinent enough to talk about. Especially when "underlying race based issues" come into play with the IRS/Tea-Party Targeting story.

Speaking of race and class issues with IRS Auditing procedures, the media would be wise to compare and contrast what happened in 2004, when the National Association of the Advancement of Color People (NAACP) via its' former President Julian Bond was targeted by the IRS for the groups' opposition to the failed Iraq War, if they can find file footage that is. At least Democracy Now Amy Goodman was talking about this targeting effort of the NAACP back then.



<IFRAME height=225 src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2004/11/1/irs_investigating_naacp_for_criticizing_bush" frameBorder=0 width=400></IFRAME>​


We searched for other videos denoting what Mr. Bond said at the NAACP's 95th Convention Keynote Speech on July 11, 2004, yet could only come up with this non-embedded clip starting at the 34:12 mark from CSPAN and the following statement as noted in the Associated Press October 29, 2004.
"In that speech, Bond said of the Bush administration: "They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division. They've tried to patch the leaky economy and every other domestic problem with duct tape and plastic sheets. They write a new constitution of Iraq and they ignore the Constitution here at home."
So because of Bond and NAACP's opposition to the War in Iraq, the group in 2004 was audited without much fanfare from the media about how wrong, Unconstitutional and encroaching on the NAACP Free Speech rights these actions where.

Free speech can go both ways. Despite how disgusting the speech could be, people generally still have rights to say it. As long as the words does not threaten a individual, the speech wouldn't be considered criminal in nature. Nevertheless, to say that many members of the public at large would not be offended by some free speech of some Tea Party groups would be frankly, a lie.



On MSNBC's Chris Matthews Hardball Program today, the panel "tipped into the tea-leaves" President Obama had some sort of 'ESP-type' of knowledge employees at the IRS were "targeting" Tea-Party Organizations 501.c4 tax-exempt status eligibility in some manner.

In fact, Joe Klein, Howard Fineman and Chris Matthews went as far to suggest the "Tea-Party IRS scandal" could resemble the "Nixon Administration Watergate cover-up in "What did they know and when did they know it" of the early 1970's as the interview went on. Really? Listen below.

<EMBED height=245 name=msnbc94bc49 type=application/x-shockwave-flash pluginspage=http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash width=420 src=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640 FlashVars="launch=51870244^155125^837018&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent">
</EMBED></OBJECT>

Here we go. It's been awhile since the media had a "scandal" they could ride like a wild horse until the animal is beaten into submission. Similar to former President Bill Clinton impeachment but not removal for his role in the Monica Lewinsky Scandal.

As most Americans are struggling to find or keep a job, stay in their homes or how to pay Sallie Mae after take home pay was cut by 5% to "save costs" for a corporate C.E.O.; the Tea-Party IRS Scandal is most important to cover right now to let media resources tell it.

Ironically, its a shame these same media resources failed to have a "Scandal Fever" when the organization facing IRS scrutiny was the NAACP.
 
Where was the outrage when tthe irs targetted the naacp for speaking out kn bush?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
  • Whatever I have said in the past about the Tea Party, generally, I stand by it. Without question, not my cup of tea.
  • To the extent that the IRS targeted Tea Party organizations, conservative organizations, liberartarian organizations, etc., because they are such organizations or for any reason other than one that in fact causes it to focus on any other group, organization, etc., I think is plainly wrong, potentially illegal detrimental to and underminds sound public confidence in government.

First off, it wasn't just Tea Bagger groups, it was conservative groups.

The right has won the argument. Many apologize without analyzing the full issue.

With the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, many groups claiming to be tax exempt, non-political organizations are actually and obviously political front groups. The overwhelming amount are right wing in ideology. The IRS, albeit rather ineptly, was just using logic in targeting the most probable abusers.
 
First off, it wasn't just Tea Bagger groups, it was conservative groups.

The right has won the argument. Many apologize without analyzing the full issue.

With the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, many groups claiming to be tax exempt, non-political organizations are actually and obviously political front groups. The overwhelming amount are right wing in ideology. The IRS, albeit rather ineptly, was just using logic in targeting the most probable abusers.

My thoughts exactly...and the reason they use to challenge the ncaap because of political speech

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
source: Independent Underground News & Talk


While The Media Cries Foul Over IRS-Tea Party Action; NAACP Tax Audit In 2004 Was Met With Near Silence


We would all agree being subject to scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service can be an intimidating process.

Famous celebrities have been knocked down to "regular citizen" status while the IRS crosses "T's" and dot "I's" on nearly every piece of financial information. The late Redd Foxx, Sammy Davis, Jr., along with R&B crooner Ronald Isley danced a dance with the IRS and lost, just to name a few.

Yet the media is obviously are too darn busy to focus on issues facing real Americans: the high underemployment (U-6) rate of 14%, student loan debt, inadequate nature of the U.S. Housing Market, public education falling apart at the seams or the lack of savings of middle and lower economic classes in the USA. Would the corporate media actions be best described as needing another "scandal" in what would be otherwise another boring news cycle? Probably.

Either way, the momentary "buzz" is now focused on how employees at the IRS Processing Office in Cincinnati, Ohio allegedly "targeted" Tea-Party groups seeking to gain 501.c.4 tax-status exemption certification. The Conservative based organizations declare they were targeted due to a deep dislike of President Barack Obama policies, including a vehement opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

These are important facts to remember when the media "echo-chamber"seeks to push the next "Independent Counsel Investigation" lasting until 2014 or 2016 election cycle. Our media resources would lead the public to believe Americans ability to place food on the tables with Congress purposed cuts to the Food Assistance program, is not pertinent enough to talk about. Especially when "underlying race based issues" come into play with the IRS/Tea-Party Targeting story.

Speaking of race and class issues with IRS Auditing procedures, the media would be wise to compare and contrast what happened in 2004, when the National Association of the Advancement of Color People (NAACP) via its' former President Julian Bond was targeted by the IRS for the groups' opposition to the failed Iraq War, if they can find file footage that is. At least Democracy Now Amy Goodman was talking about this targeting effort of the NAACP back then.



<IFRAME height=225 src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2004/11/1/irs_investigating_naacp_for_criticizing_bush" frameBorder=0 width=400></IFRAME>​


We searched for other videos denoting what Mr. Bond said at the NAACP's 95th Convention Keynote Speech on July 11, 2004, yet could only come up with this non-embedded clip starting at the 34:12 mark from CSPAN and the following statement as noted in the Associated Press October 29, 2004.
"In that speech, Bond said of the Bush administration: "They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division. They've tried to patch the leaky economy and every other domestic problem with duct tape and plastic sheets. They write a new constitution of Iraq and they ignore the Constitution here at home."
So because of Bond and NAACP's opposition to the War in Iraq, the group in 2004 was audited without much fanfare from the media about how wrong, Unconstitutional and encroaching on the NAACP Free Speech rights these actions where.

Free speech can go both ways. Despite how disgusting the speech could be, people generally still have rights to say it. As long as the words does not threaten a individual, the speech wouldn't be considered criminal in nature. Nevertheless, to say that many members of the public at large would not be offended by some free speech of some Tea Party groups would be frankly, a lie.



On MSNBC's Chris Matthews Hardball Program today, the panel "tipped into the tea-leaves" President Obama had some sort of 'ESP-type' of knowledge employees at the IRS were "targeting" Tea-Party Organizations 501.c4 tax-exempt status eligibility in some manner.

In fact, Joe Klein, Howard Fineman and Chris Matthews went as far to suggest the "Tea-Party IRS scandal" could resemble the "Nixon Administration Watergate cover-up in "What did they know and when did they know it" of the early 1970's as the interview went on. Really? Listen below.

<EMBED height=245 name=msnbc94bc49 type=application/x-shockwave-flash pluginspage=http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash width=420 src=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640 FlashVars="launch=51870244^155125^837018&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent">
</EMBED></OBJECT>

Here we go. It's been awhile since the media had a "scandal" they could ride like a wild horse until the animal is beaten into submission. Similar to former President Bill Clinton impeachment but not removal for his role in the Monica Lewinsky Scandal.

As most Americans are struggling to find or keep a job, stay in their homes or how to pay Sallie Mae after take home pay was cut by 5% to "save costs" for a corporate C.E.O.; the Tea-Party IRS Scandal is most important to cover right now to let media resources tell it.

Ironically, its a shame these same media resources failed to have a "Scandal Fever" when the organization facing IRS scrutiny was the NAACP.

:bravo:
 
Ironically, its a shame these same media resources failed to have a "Scandal Fever" when the organization facing IRS scrutiny was the NAACP

It's not a shame but a disgrace because it's done purposely. A progressive group like ACORN was butchered by right wing media with an an assist by mainstream, corporate media but the truth that would exonerate them was only covered in progressive media. But any slight even felt by conservatives and their groups is blown into a full scandal before all the facts are out. This is not coincidental or accidental.
 
Last edited:
source: Salon

When the IRS targeted liberals

Under George W. Bush, it went after the NAACP, Greenpeace and even a liberal church

bush_irs-620x412.jpg


While few are defending the Internal Revenue Service for targeting some 300 conservative groups, there are two critical pieces of context missing from the conventional wisdom on the “scandal.” First, at least from what we know so far, the groups were not targeted in a political vendetta — but rather were executing a makeshift enforcement test (an ugly one, mind you) for IRS employees tasked with separating political groups not allowed to claim tax-exempt status, from bona fide social welfare organizations. Employees are given almost zero official guidance on how to do that, so they went after Tea Party groups because those seemed like they might be political. Keep in mind, the commissioner of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.

The second is that while this is the first time this kind of thing has become a national scandal, it’s not the first time such activity has occurred.

“I wish there was more GOP interest when I raised the same issue during the Bush administration, where they audited a progressive church in my district in what look liked a very selective way,” California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on MSNBC Monday. “I found only one Republican, [North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones], that would join me in calling for an investigation during the Bush administration. I’m glad now that the GOP has found interest in this issue and it ought to be a bipartisan concern.”

The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.

The church, which said progressive activism was in its “DNA,” hired a powerful Washington lawyer and enlisted the help of Schiff, who met with the commissioner of the IRS twice and called for a Government Accountability Office investigation, saying the IRS audit violated the First Amendment and was unduly targeting a political opponent of the Bush administration. “My client is very concerned that the close coordination undertaken by the IRS allowed partisan political concerns to direct the course of the All Saints examination,” church attorney Marcus Owens, who is widely considered one of the country’s leading experts on this area of the law, said at the time. In 2007, the IRS closed the case, decreeing that the church violated rules preventing political intervention, but it did not revoke its nonprofit status.

And while All Saints came under the gun, conservative churches across the country were helping to mobilize voters for Bush with little oversight. In 2006, citing the precedent of All Saints, “a group of religious leaders accused the Internal Revenue Service yesterday of playing politics by ignoring its complaint that two large churches in Ohio are engaging in what it says are political activities, in violation of the tax code,” the New York Times reported at the time. The churches essentially campaigned for a Republican gubernatorial candidate, they alleged, and even flew him on one of their planes.

Meanwhile, Citizens for Ethics in Washington filed two ethics complaints against a church in Minnesota. “You know we can’t publicly endorse as a church and would not for any candidate, but I can tell you personally that I’m going to vote for Michele Bachmann,” pastor Mac Hammond of the Living Word Christian Center in Minnesota said in 2006 before welcoming her to the church. The IRS opened an audit into the church, but it went nowhere after the church appealed the audit on a technicality.

And it wasn’t just churches. In 2004, the IRS went after the NAACP, auditing the nation’s oldest civil rights group after its chairman criticized President Bush for being the first sitting president since Herbert Hoover not to address the organization. “They are saying if you criticize the president we are going to take your tax exemption away from you,” then-chairman Julian Bond said. “It’s pretty obvious that the complainant was someone who doesn’t believe George Bush should be criticized, and it’s obvious of their response that the IRS believes this, too.”

In a letter to the IRS, Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel, Pete Stark and John Conyers wrote: “It is obvious that the timing of this IRS examination is nothing more than an effort to intimidate the members of the NAACP, and the communities the organization represents, in their get-out-the-vote effort nationwide.”

Then, in 2006, the Wall Street Journal broke the story of a how a little-known pressure group called Public Interest Watch — which received 97 percent of its funds from Exxon Mobile one year — managed to get the IRS to open an investigation into Greenpeace. Greenpeace had labeled Exxon Mobil the “No. 1 climate criminal.” The IRS acknowledged its audit was initiated by Public Interest Watch and threatened to revoke Greenpeace’s tax-exempt status, but closed the investigation three months later.

As the Journal reporter, Steve Stecklow, later said in an interview, “This comes against a backdrop where a number of conservative groups have been attacking nonprofits and NGOs over their tax-exempt status. There have been hearings on Capitol Hill. There have been a number of conservative groups in Washington who have been quite critical.”

Indeed, the year before that, the Senate held a hearing on nonprofits’ political activity. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, the then-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the IRS needed better enforcement, but also “legislative changes” to better define the lines between politics and social welfare, since they had not been updated in “a generation.” Unfortunately, neither Congress nor the IRS has defined 501(c)4′s sufficiently to this day, leaving the door open for IRS auditors to make up their own, discriminatory rules.

Those cases mostly involved 501(c)3 organizations, which live in a different section of the tax code for real charities like hospitals and schools. The rules are much stronger and better developed for (c)3′s, in part because they’ve been around longer. But with “social welfare” (c)4 groups, the kind of political activity we saw in 2010 and 2012 is so unprecedented that you get cases like Emerge America, a progressive nonprofit that trains Democratic female candidates for public office. The group has chapters across the country, but in 2011, chapters in Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada were denied 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. Leaders called the situation “bizarre” because in the five years Nevada had waited for approval, the Kentucky chapter was approved, only for the other three to be denied.

A former IRS official told the New York Times that probably meant the applications were sent to different offices, which use slightly different standards. Different offices within the same organization that are supposed to impose the exact same rules in a consistent manner have such uneven conceptions of where to draw the line at a political group, that they can approve one organization and then deny its twin in a different state.

All of these stories suggest that while concern with the IRS posture toward conservative groups now may be merited, to fully understand the situation requires a bit of context and history.
 

Senator Pushes for Investigation of
‘False Statements’ by Dark Money Groups​


ProPublica
April 10, 2013


A Democratic senator is pushing for an investigation of nonprofit groups that told the Internal Revenue Service they would not engage in political activity — and then spent millions attacking or praising candidates in 2012 elections.


sheldon_whitehouse_041013_300x200.jpg



Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, said at a campaign finance hearing yesterday [April 9, 2013] that there were “numerous instances” in which nonprofit groups may have made false statements to the IRS about whether they planned to be involved in federal or local elections.

Applications for tax-exempt status are submitted to the IRS under penalty of perjury. If the IRS is not well-suited to investigate these “plain vanilla criminal cases,” the U.S. Department of Justice should, Whitehouse said.

ProPublica has reported extensively on the gap between what these groups told the IRS they would do in their applications for tax-exempt status and what they actually did.

Part of the benefit of being recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit is that these “social welfare” groups do not have to disclose their donors publicly. But in order to quality as a 501(c)(4), groups cannot make influencing elections their primary activity.

In 2008, Western Tradition Partnership, now known as American Tradition Partnership, told the IRS that it would not attempt to sway elections. Shortly before submitting this application, it had blitzed Montana voters with fliers weighing in on candidates in the state’s Republican primary. After the IRS approved the group’s tax-exempt status, it continued to send out fliers supporting or opposing candidates in both Montana and Colorado.

Similarly, the Government Integrity Fund told the IRS in 2011 that it did not plan to spend any money influencing elections. []Then[/b], in 2012, the group spent more than $1 million on ads attacking Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown and praising his Republican opponent, Josh Mandel.

When Arizona-based Americans for Responsible Leadership applied for tax-exempt status in 2012, the group had already spent $5,300 on get-out-the-vote efforts for Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and given $57,500 to two Republican political committees in Arizona.

But it told the IRS in a confidential filing that it had not spent any money, and did not plan to spend any money, influencing state, local, or federal elections. The group would go on to spend $5.2 million on campaign activities in the fall of 2012, most of it on phone calls urging the defeat of President Barack Obama.

After ProPublica ran a story on the group, a lawyer for Americans for Responsible Leadership told the Arizona Capital Times that the group had submitted an “amended application” to the IRS that “corrected the error.”

The Government Integrity Fund told ProPublica that it worked hard to be in compliance with the law and that “Legally, the concept of ‘influencing elections’ has been narrowly defined.”

And the American Tradition Partnership’s executive director said that ATP had obeyed all applicable laws and “does not, and never will, tell voters which candidates to vote for."​

At the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on campaign finance law enforcement hearing, Whitehouse did not mention any nonprofit groups by name, but he cited ProPublica's reporting on these groups at length in his introduction to the hearing, as his spokesman noted.

Whether or not the IRS or the Justice Department is already investigating any of these groups is not clear. Representatives who testified at the hearing would not comment on any ongoing investigations.

Larry Noble, the president of Americans for Campaign Reform, said at the hearing that the IRS and the Justice Department were hesitant to enforce the laws on the books because of “fear of getting involved in politics, fear of being called partisan when you’re not.”

Mythili Raman, the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s criminal division, testified that the rise of new 501(c)(4) groups active in politics increased the risk of “bad actors using the anonymity that’s given to them when they donate” to corrupt the political process.

Raman said that the department needed more transparency in order to enforce anti-corruption laws—as well as a clearer definition of “coordination.” Super PACs and 501(c)(4) “dark money” nonprofits can raise unlimited amounts of money, but they aren’t allowed to “coordinate” their advertising spending or other political activities with candidates’ campaign. Proving coordination, though, isn’t easy.

“We simply don’t have the tools to tell if super PACs are illegally coordinating with campaigns,” Raman testified.

Part of the issue, she said in her prepared testimony, was that the Federal Elections Committee has failed to define whether certain activities— like a candidate’s mother running a super PAC expressly supporting his candidacy—count as coordination.

Whitehouse also pressed for investigations of whether individuals or organizations had created “shell companies” or used 501(c)(4)’s to donate money to political action committees in order to avoid disclosure requirements. Americans for Responsible Leadership is currently under investigation in California for what a state watchdog group called “campaign money laundering.”


Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, said at the hearing that aggressive enforcement of campaign finance laws might restrict free speech. He cautioned against any “prior restraint, or punishment after the fact” for citizens who choose to speak out against their elected officials.

Cruz said that Organizing for Action, a continuation of Obama’s reelection campaign that is now operating as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, was currently running ads against him, and that his campaign for Senate had been on “the receiving end of $35 million in attack ads.”

“God bless them for speaking out and being involved in politics,” Cruz said.







SOURCE



 
Is it a matter of sensationalism or a matter of favoring a right or left point of view?

Good question, but frankly, I'm not always certain.

Of course, we know that there are outlets that lean right or left and those that promote themselves as somewhere in between. ALL of them, however, are competitors and ALL promote themselves invariably, I believe, through various forms of sensationalism or buzz -- which they believe best serve their view-point-interest.

lMO, the sensational or buzz often has an edge, even over the truth. Ratings, ad dollars, Reporter reputation, market prestige/share, etc., are all aided or promoted by the audience reaction to the sensational or buzz.

For those who have an interest in the outcome, it becomes a contest to capture, control, limit, reverse, cause, stimulate, massage, etc., the sensationalism or buzz.
 
ha ha tea baggers still think bush and chaney could protect them...


this tea party dont get it, their 15 minutes been up, since President Obama won a second term..

the irs situation is just a wake up call..and warning to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up!!

before we treat you like a black organization...
 
I just knew Thought was going to bring up 2004.

Typical comeback again....

If Bush did push up on the NAACP, then he is wrong too.

BTW, it's funny how no one has brought up the fact that President Obama did have a head IRS dude in when he had a meeting with a number of black pastors after the gay marriage discussion back in 2012.

This is probably why we barely hear any criticism on President Obama's policies from the black church. Everything is corrupt these days.

However, don't mind me, continue to find a justification for this type of actions. We all know that our dear President can't do anything wrong....
 
I just knew Thought was going to bring up 2004.

Typical comeback again....

If Bush did push up on the NAACP, then he is wrong too.

BTW, it's funny how no one has brought up the fact that President Obama did have a head IRS dude in when he had a meeting with a number of black pastors after the gay marriage discussion back in 2012.

This is probably why we barely hear any criticism on President Obama's policies from the black church. Everything is corrupt these days.

However, don't mind me, continue to find a justification for this type of actions. We all know that our dear President can't do anything wrong....

Ah, the silence has been broken and all it took was some conservative victimhood to do it.:smh:

I would suggest that, like me, you take a step back and watch how this plays out or, like Benghazi and ACORN, you could end up with another faux-controversy filled with right wing lies and distortion.

But T1 is right to point out 2004 and I've noticed that outside of progressive hosts and media, no one else is.
If this wasn't a big deal in 04, or worse, you thought it was okay then, be equally silent or supportive now. Hypocrisy should be frowned.
 
Ah, the silence has been broken and all it took was some conservative victimhood to do it.:smh:

I would suggest that, like me, you take a step back and watch how this plays out or, like Benghazi and ACORN, you could end up with another faux-controversy filled with right wing lies and distortion.

But T1 is right to point out 2004 and I've noticed that outside of progressive hosts and media, no one else is.
If this wasn't a big deal in 04, or worse, you thought it was okay then, be equally silent or supportive now. Hypocrisy should be frowned.

You're missing my point, I'm saying if this story true in both cases, its wrong.

I'm essentially doing the same thing you are doing.

It's funny how you characterize Fox as "right wing lies" ,but don't characterize t1's post as "left wing lies".

Perhaps its because you agree with one?

If so, why the fuck are you trying to lecture me about my beliefs if you pretty much agree more with t1? That's not being independent IMHO.

*edit* I wasn't a part of this board in 2004. Therefore, I couldn't make a proper response. So, you might wanna recant that comment about me being quiet about that incident.
 
You're missing my point, I'm saying if this story true in both cases, its wrong.

I'm essentially doing the same thing you are doing.

It's funny how you characterize Fox as "right wing lies" ,but don't characterize t1's post as "left wing lies".

Perhaps its because you agree with one?


I don't compare T1 with FNC. He's an individual that posts links and articles, they are a full fledged media outlet (not news organization) with nearly endless resources. T1 might post wrong information but he's posting wrong information that someone else put out there (not saying you do but hypothetically) while FNC actually willfully produces political misinformation.
Not only should I not believe or agree with them, no one should because they've long been proven to be unreliable. The fact that anyone cites them or listens/watches their shows speaks volumes about them.

If so, why the fuck are you trying to lecture me about my beliefs if you pretty much agree more with t1? That's not being independent IMHO.

Then you don't understand the definition of "independent". T1 and I have similar philosophical and political ideas but we developed them independently of each other. We didn't grow up together and I didn't believe one way and changed because I thought T1 was "cool".
I'm not lecturing you at all. In fact, I'm urging caution.

*edit* I wasn't a part of this board in 2004. Therefore, I couldn't make a proper response. So, you might wanna recant that comment about me being quiet about that incident.

You took the "you" too personally. No recant offer.
 
The head of the IRS is a Bush appointee

source: ABC News

Tea Party Rejects IRS Apology, Republicans Vow Investigation

Conservative groups have rejected an Internal Revenue Service apology for unjustifiably scrutinizing tax-exempt conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle. The IRS apology has seemingly validated conservatives' fears of politically motivated regulation.

House Republican leaders, meanwhile, have vowed to investigate.

Lois Lerner, the director the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt organizations, said that organizations had been given additional scrutiny if their applications included the words "Tea Party" or "patriot." The practice originated with "low-level" employees in Cincinnati, according to an Associated Press report.

In a press conference on Friday, Lerner called the actions of these employees "absolutely inappropriate."

"They didn't do it because of any political bias," Lerner said, adding that singling out groups with specific names was an ill-thought-out organizational "shortcut."

"It was an error in judgment and it wasn't appropriate but that's what they did," she said.

"We've now corrected these issues, and we don't expect that any of these will be repeated going forward."

Despite the apology, conservative groups are now seizing on the news, which they say proves their long-standing complaints of mistreatment by the IRS.

"President Obama must also apologize for his administration ignoring repeated complaints by these broad grassroots organizations of harassment by the IRS in 2012, and make concrete and transparent steps today to ensure this never happens again," said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots.

Tea Party Express founder Sal Russo told ABC News that his group, formed as a PAC, never heard from the IRS but did hear from smaller Tea Party groups that complained of government scrutiny.

"On our bus tours the local Tea Party groups were all screaming about it. It was so pronounced around the country that it was obvious that the tea party groups were being targeted. Not unlike any bureaucracy, the first reaction is to deny everything even when they don't know the facts," Russo told ABC News, saying he is "glad they finally acknowledged what was obvious to everyone else."

"We appreciate that the IRS acknowledged and apologized, but the real question is, how do we make sure that this never happens again? All Americans, regardless of their philosophical beliefs, should be treated equally under the laws of the land," said Jackie Bodnar, spokeswoman for the tax-exempt tea-party group FreedomWorks.

Republican members of Congress were also quick to register their displeasure, and House leaders have promised to investigate.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, who has dogged the Obama administration from his position on the House's top investigative panel, promised to delve into the matter.

"The fact that Americans were targeted by the IRS because of their political beliefs is unconscionable. The committee will aggressively follow up on the IG report and hold responsible officials accountable for this political retaliation," Issa said in a statement.

House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor echoed his promise.

"The IRS cannot target or intimidate any individual or organization based on their political beliefs. The House will investigate this matter," Cantor said.
<!-- bg -->
<!-- empty -->
"Today, we are left with serious questions: Who is ultimately responsible for this travesty? What actions will the Obama administration take to hold them accountable? And have other federal agencies used government powers to attack Americans for partisan reasons?" Boehner said in a statement. "House Republicans have made oversight of federal agencies a top priority on behalf of the American people, and I applaud the work that members such as Charles Boustany, Darrell Issa and Jim Jordan have done to bring this issue to light."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., publicly asked President Obama to review his entire administration for politicization.

"Today, I call on the White House to conduct a transparent, government-wide review aimed at assuring the American people that these thuggish practices are not underway at the IRS or elsewhere in the administration against anyone, regardless of their political views," McConnell said in a statement.

Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff at the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, called the IRS story "constitutionally troubling" and suggested that "there must be clear checks in place to prevent this from ever happening again." Even former Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett tweeted: "IRS seems to be claiming this was stupidity, not malice. Maybe so. But we shouldn't take their word for it and neither should Congress."

At his daily press briefing on Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called the IRS's actions "inappropriate."

"We've certainly seen those reports. My understanding is this matter is under investigation by the IG [inspector general] at the IRS," Carney said, when asked if the administration would oblige McConnell's request for an administration-wide review.

"The IRS, as you know, is an independent enforcement agency, with only two political appointees. The fact of the matter is what we know about this is of concern, and we certainly find the actions taken as reported to be inappropriate, and we would fully expect the investigation to be thorough and for corrections to be made," Carney said.

Carney pointed out that the IRS commissioner in 2012, Douglas Shulman, was appointed by President George W. Bush. Asked when the White House became aware of the extra reviews, Carney referred questions to the IRS.

"I learned about it today," Carney said.

In a statement, the IRS admitted that "mistakes were made," but it said that the errors were not due to "any political or partisan rationale."

"We fixed the situation last year and have made significant progress in moving the centralized cases through our system," the IRS said. "It is important to recognize that all centralized applications received the same, even-handed treatment, and the majority of cases centralized were not based on a specific name."

The IRS said that about 75 applications for tax-exempt status that contained the words "Tea Party" or "patriot" were added to a pool of 225 other applications that were singled out for additional scrutiny. So far, none of those applications have been rejected, although some have been withdrawn.

The news came after an election cycle punctuated by claims by li
beral and watchdog groups that conservative tax-exempt organizations were unduly influencing political elections, and in some cases, violating their tax-exempt status.

Groups with a 501(c)4 tax status are prohibited from using more than half of their resources for electioneering activities.

"The revelations revealed today that the IRS was targeting conservative groups during the 2012 elections is shocking," said David Bossie, president of Citizen's United, the 501(c)4 organization that touched off much of the recent controversy over these groups' role in political elections.

"The politicization of the IRS cannot be tolerated by the American people. To single out groups because they offer a point of view that is different from the Obama administration harkens back to the dark days of the Nixon administration."

Some liberal and watchdog groups believed that the IRS wasn't doing enough to review groups that they believed might be flouting their 501(c)4 tax-exempt status in the 2012 election.

"That's the most interesting thing about this: They were actually doing it," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance law expert and former counsel of the Federal Election Commission. "Now that they have done it, to some degree, it looks like they stepped on a pile off dog doo."

The effect of this revelation could be chilling for future regulation of politically active, tax-exempt groups.

"There are legitimate questions to be asked about political groups that are hiding behind a 501(c)4 status," said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign in a statement. "It's unfortunate a few bad apples at the IRS will make it harder for those questions to be asked without claims of bias."

Particularly after the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling in 2010 created "super PACs," which opened the door for these political action committees to receive funds from affiliated tax-exempt groups that don't have to disclose their donors, the arrangement has been the subject of ridicule. Comedian Stephen Colbert in one instance accused American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, two organizations affiliated with Republican operative Karl Rove, of "money laundering."

Later in the election cycle, former aides to President Obama formed their own groups, Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action, which used the same organizational principle to boost the Obama campaign.

McConnell highlighted reports of harassment by the IRS of conservative groups.

"Earlier this year, dozens of Tea Party-affiliated groups across the country learned what it was like to draw the attention of the speech police when they received a lengthy questionnaire from the IRS demanding attendance lists, meeting transcripts and donor information," McConnell said in a speech at the American Enterprise institute last year.

"One of the group's leaders described the situation this way: '[Groups like ours] either drown … in unnecessary paper work … or you survive, and give them everything they want, only to be hung.'"

The rare apology in some ways vindicates conservative groups that have been hounded by allegations that their activities were not completely legal.

It also suggests that the IRS might be attempting to get ahead of legal action or congressional scrutiny, Gross said.

"The IRS is not accustomed to apologizing for anything," Gross said. "Maybe they were trying to avert embarrassing congressional hearings or just get out in front of any criticism that might come their way. But in Washington, these things tend to fuel things rather than abate them."
 
The head of the IRS is a Bush appointee

source: ABC News

Tea Party Rejects IRS Apology, Republicans Vow Investigation

Conservative groups have rejected an Internal Revenue Service apology for unjustifiably scrutinizing tax-exempt conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle. The IRS apology has seemingly validated conservatives' fears of politically motivated regulation.

House Republican leaders, meanwhile, have vowed to investigate.

Right now, they're in their full-court press; their spread offense with 5 wideouts; their sell-out blitz; their German-style blitzkrieg; the kitchen sink, the baby & the bath water . . . assault - - - an apparent extension of the failed Sabotage the Economy and Voter Suppression assaults.

 



1/3rd of Republican House Committees are presently investigating the President.


 
Right now, they're in their full-court press; their spread offense with 5 wideouts; their sell-out blitz; their German-style blitzkrieg; the kitchen sink, the baby & the bath water . . . assault - - - an apparent extension of the failed Sabotage the Economy and Voter Suppression assaults.

Especially since the economy is improving, if ever so slightly, no thanks to the republicans.

Notice the republicans have stopped talking about that!
 
Especially since the economy is improving, if ever so slightly, no thanks to the republicans.

Notice the republicans have stopped talking about that!

They're using the drum beat of their assault to drown out any hints of improvement.

Hell, LOL, I thought I heard some the other day shouting the words from run, Jesse run: "Our time, has come; Our time, has come . . ." !!!

These mofo's are on a serious 2014, 2016 Trip.
 
I don't compare T1 with FNC. He's an individual that posts links and articles, they are a full fledged media outlet (not news organization) with nearly endless resources. T1 might post wrong information but he's posting wrong information that someone else put out there (not saying you do but hypothetically) while FNC actually willfully produces political misinformation.
Not only should I not believe or agree with them, no one should because they've long been proven to be unreliable. The fact that anyone cites them or listens/watches their shows speaks volumes about them.



Then you don't understand the definition of "independent". T1 and I have similar philosophical and political ideas but we developed them independently of each other. We didn't grow up together and I didn't believe one way and changed because I thought T1 was "cool".
I'm not lecturing you at all. In fact, I'm urging caution.



You took the "you" too personally. No recant offer.

Dave you obviously do not understand what being independent really truly means.

True, you might formed your political beliefs on your own *just like many on this board has*, but that's not what it means. If that was the case, everyone is an independent politically. I'm going off your political beliefs. You just admit that you agree with t1 mostly. Reading the posts T1 makes, we all know that he is a progressive/liberal/far-left/ect. He will never admit that though because just like anyone else in that ideology group, they tend to be cowards when labels are in play. I can't respect a man/woman who lacks the willingness to be honest with themselves. To me, if your ideology is so great, why are you scared to be labeled as such.

I'm really trying not to look at you in the same light as T1, but you are making it really hard.

Again, so MSNBC, THINKPROGRESS, and all the other left-leaning media outlets are truthful in your eyes? Maybe I wasn't as specific with my question.
 
Especially since the economy is improving, if ever so slightly, no thanks to the republicans.

Notice the republicans have stopped talking about that!

They're using the drum beat of their assault to drown out any hints of improvement.

Hell, LOL, I thought I heard some the other day shouting the words from run, Jesse run: "Our time, has come; Our time, has come . . ." !!!

These mofo's are on a serious 2014, 2016 Trip.

So, which policy President Obama implemented that helped the economy?

I can argue that the sequestration gave life to the economy briefly. Not to mention, the whole gun control debate drove gun sales up.
 
So, which policy President Obama implemented that helped the economy?

I can argue that the sequestration gave life to the economy briefly. Not to mention, the whole gun control debate drove gun sales up.


Why not post your questions in a thread that is at least tangentially relevant to the question. This thread, in case you haven't noticed, isn't.

You could have easily asked those questions in a thread I just updated: Obama’s Numbers -- Since He Took Office or maybe the well-known Economy Slowly Improves; Gunner Hates it thread.
 
Back
Top