mpg
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Messages
- 7,795
- Reaction score
- 1,784
- Location
- Milford, CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
"consistent" as in all Tea Party groups being treated like each other, but not "consistent" as in being treated like liberal groups
In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
USAToday: RS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold
irs internal review---independent of tigta: "significant problems," "substantial bias"
Internal IRS probe cited same problems with approach to conservative groups in May 2012 - The Washington Post
that is, the irs says the irs discriminated
why do you think doj launched its criminal investigation?
if you're not familiar with nancy j marks, you really don't know the story
but that won't stop you from prejudging
knock yourself out
the gray lady (nyt), february:
501c4 ofa is "an extension of the administration stocked with alumni of obama's white house and campaign teams devoted solely to the president's second term agenda," "whose goal is to harness its resources in support of obama's priorities," "not unlike the super pacs obama once deplored," whose half million dollar donors are invited to attend white house quarterly meetings
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/u...ess-agenda.html?pagewanted=1&%2359&%2359&_r=0
that's some pretty prices social welfare
how did the GOP operative fit into this
Why do you have such a problem with holding the government accountable for their actions? The current administration has plead ignorance to the IRS issue, the Benghazi issue and the wiretapping of reporters as well as F&F before that. The stuff that they have admitted to and defended includes collecting personal information on ALL American citizens. Don't you find that to be the least bit troubling?
The two houses of Congress are the people's representatives. They are supposed to be accountable to the people and part of that accountability is taking reasonable actions to insure that government isn't treading too heavily on the toes of law abiding citizens. In light of the current situation I welcome these investigations. At least they're investigating something that matters instead of steroids in baseball.
Dude, the TIGTA report shows how that "grouping" was accomplished and although grouping all the applicants that had "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their name or talked about Constitutional overreach may be consistent that doesn't mean that it wasn't targeting based on political ideology.
Dude, the testimony from the self described conservative republican shows that the treatment those group received had nothing to do with their political ideology. What you claimed was a lie.
At last Thursday's press conference, Obama chose his words about the IRS scandal very carefully. "I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press." Even though he was asked about the overall malfeasance, he specifically said he didn't know about the report. That parsing alone raises questions about the level of candor coming from the White House.
Though the White House counsel’s office was informed of the IRS probe in late April, Obama has insisted that he only learned about the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups through media reports last Friday. But he wouldn’t say definitively that the White House was unaware of the targeting before then.
So your position is that this low to mid-level guy is telling the whole story while his supervisors and the IG were all just making up stuff?
And with regard to your other comment....I'm talking about government. Right now this is the Obama administration's baby but wrong is wrong no matter who is doing it.
I find it fascinating that you seem to consider all other Republicans to be liars but this one guy who says something you like is OK.:roll:
And as far as republicans, or anyone else, being liars - When they say something that makes them look bad, and absolves their enemies of wrongdoing, I assume they're telling the truth.
So your position is that this low to mid-level guy is telling the whole story while his supervisors and the IG were all just making up stuff?:
It's unfortunate that the left needs a Republican in office before they can don their ceremonial garb's of accountabillity.
You guys have one guy, who's political affiliation cannot be proved, who sent back ( To Washington) one case, and now Issa is lying ?
Dude, the self-described conservative
republican has already explained
where the idea to investigate the applications of Tea Party groups originated, and it has nothing to do with Obama, or anyone in the White House.
And as far as republicans, or anyone else, being liars - When they say something that makes them look bad, and absolves their enemies of wrongdoing, I assume they're telling the truth.
does anyone else= the democrats?
He testified
under penalty of perjury. And it's easy to prove party affiliations. It's as simple as asking coworkers if the guy ever talked about them.
So now the tea bagger position is the guy is risking jail to protect Obama?
BWHHAHHAHAHAH! Oh the conservative brain on Obamaphobia.
Dude, the self-described conservative republican has already explained where the idea to investigate the applications of Tea Party groups originated, and it has nothing to do with Obama, or anyone in the White House.
And as far as republicans, or anyone else, being liars - When they say something that makes them look bad, and absolves their enemies of wrongdoing, I assume they're telling the truth.
I may as well be talking to the wind on this but what the guy said was that he's the one who started this grouping. That's fine and I have no reason to believe that it isn't true but that doesn't mean that it isn't inappropriate targeting. Furthermore, when this inappropriate targeting (all kinds of people at the top level including Cummings agree that it was inappropriate) was discovered nothing was done about it. THAT is where the problem lies.
People in large organizations make bad decisions all the time but proper accountability means that those decisions will be discovered and corrected. Since nobody in the chain of command - right up to Schulman - did anything to fix this problem that leads us to a very limited number of conclusions:
1. They didn't see it as a problem
2. They recognized the problem but chose not to address it
3. They condoned the practice
If they didn't see it as a problem that that, in and of itself, is a pretty doggone big problem.
If they recognized the problem and chose to do nothing then that's a conspiracy.
If they condoned the practice then they were willfully engaged in using the IRS for acts of political intimidation or influence.
That was dishonest.
You claimed that the targeting was based on political ideology. His testimony, which you now claim you have no reason to not believe, was that the targeting had NOTHING to do with political ideology.
And so now that your dishonest whine has been debunked, now you're going to claim that the "real" problem is how nothing was done about it (even though the fact that there was an investigation, and the head of the IRS has resigned proves that something *was* done about it)
And those problems have been investigated and corrected, and people have been forced to resign, so all of your "concerns" have been addressed. Yet, you continue to express poutrage that nothing has been done about this
It must be hard to see your dreams of this being pinned on Obama get shattered. But don't worry - I'm sure the republicans in congress will come up with a new faux scandal next week. And I'm just as sure that you'll never try to hold *them* accountable for all the lies they've told and all the taxpayer money they're wasting with their sham investigations.
If the terms "Tea Party" and "Patriot" along with interests in limiting government overreach were the criteria while "organizing", "Progressive" expanding government were not part of those criteria then it was ABSOLUTELY targeting based on political ideology. That guy may not think so but he's wrong.