• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Records: IRS Targeted Progressive Groups More Extensively Than Tea Party

pbrauer

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,209
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
LMAO, now the conservatives have nothing to complain about.

The IRS provided the heavily-redacted lists to ThinkProgress, after nearly a year-long search. From the earliest lists through 2012, the “historical” section of the lists encouraged reviewers to watch out for “progressive” groups with names like “blue,” as their requests for 501(c)(3) charitable status might be inappropriate. Their inclusion in this section suggests that the concern predates the initial 2010 list.

Explicit references to “Tea Party,” included in the “emerging issues” section of the lists, also began in August 2010 — but stopped appearing after the May 10, 2011 list. From that point on, the lists instructed agents to flag all political advocacy groups of any stripe. The documents instructed the agents to forward any “organization involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy” applying for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status be forwarded to “group 7822″ for additional review. Groups under both categories are limited in the amount of of lobbying and political activity each can undertake.

[snip]
New Records: IRS Targeted Progressive Groups More Extensively Than Tea Party | ThinkProgress​

irs_foia-65.jpg
 
propaganda alert!!!!

obviously thats why lois lerner pulled out the "truth" while she was being grilled! pull this out and the grilling stops so much disinformation out there its unreal.
 
pbrauer said:
LMAO, now the conservatives have nothing to complain about.

The IRS provided the heavily-redacted lists to ThinkProgress, after nearly a year-long search. From the earliest lists through 2012, the “historical” section of the lists encouraged reviewers to watch out for “progressive” groups with names like “blue,” as their requests for 501(c)(3) charitable status might be inappropriate. Their inclusion in this section suggests that the concern predates the initial 2010 list.

Explicit references to “Tea Party,” included in the “emerging issues” section of the lists, also began in August 2010 — but stopped appearing after the May 10, 2011 list. From that point on, the lists instructed agents to flag all political advocacy groups of any stripe. The documents instructed the agents to forward any “organization involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy” applying for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status be forwarded to “group 7822″ for additional review. Groups under both categories are limited in the amount of of lobbying and political activity each can undertake.

[snip]
New Records: IRS Targeted Progressive Groups More Extensively Than Tea Party | ThinkProgress​

irs_foia-65.jpg
Click to expand...

ThinkProgress is a partisan website.





/pbrauer
 
Making people follow the rules is not "targeting" them. No political organizations should be getting these kinds of benefits, especially not when the approach to government that so many take is very clearly "for-profit".
 
CalGun said:
Who do you think he works for?
Click to expand...

It's possible that he is who he says he is just as much as he could be someone else. There's really no way to verify one's identity on the Internet.

I will say though, that the 100% partisan is something I've only encountered online.
 
Jango said:
ThinkProgress is a partisan website.





/pbrauer
Click to expand...

Not to mention it's misleading load of partisan BS, designed to fool the lazy, the weak minded and the unintelligent... It also gives ideological robots some phony talking points they can use to distract from the true IRS scandal which has become a very painful ordeal for them.

Oh, and before someone from the left foolishly challenges me, the reason the article is misleading partisan nonsense is:

a) Medical Marijuana was not flagged because of political content or affiliation. It was flagged because medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law, therefore isn't eligible for tax exempt status.
b) As testified to by IRS agents to the House Oversight Committee, ACORN groups were scrutinized because the agency thought they were old organizations attempting to apply as new ones, not because of political content or affiliation.
c) Only 7 groups with "progressive" in their name were flagged and all 7 were promptly approved.
d) No groups with "Occupy" in their name were flagged.
e) 100% of groups identified as "Tea party" or deemed conservative, were flagged.
f) At last check, of the nearly 300 conservative groups targeted and flagged, only a little over a third of them has received approval.

What a dishonest load of liberal propaganda... For both Pete and ThinkProgress, it's par for the course.
 
What liberal would ever falsify data?

Obama may ask for a special prosecutor to find out why it took so long for his operatives to invent a story? The IRS began suppressing conservative votes at least as early as 2010, why did it take so long to fabricate a cover story? Lois Lerner tried to slip the breaking news into a Friday briefing, thinking nobody would notice, so those operatives were obviously skilled in covering up, but why did it take them until recently to gin-up this newest pack of lies? What did they know and when did they know to falsify? Obama wants answers. Why were his operatives so slow? Why couldn't they concoct lies faster? Obama says, "it's not enough to lie, my operatives need to lie faster..."

.
 
Exactly! I get extremes - I have extreme views - but I don't have uniform views like some of the routine leftists around here. Several of them are uniform in democrat good / liberal good and republican bad / conservative bad.

Jango said:
It's possible that he is who he says he is just as much as he could be someone else. There's really no way to verify one's identity on the Internet.

I will say though, that the 100% partisan is something I've only encountered online.
Click to expand...
 
:roll::dohSo this should be non stop on Fox news for the next few days?
 
Grim17 said:
Not to mention it's misleading load of partisan BS, designed to fool the lazy, the weak minded and the unintelligent... It also gives ideological robots some phony talking points they can use to distract from the true IRS scandal which has become a very painful ordeal for them.

Oh, and before someone from the left foolishly challenges me, the reason the article is misleading partisan nonsense is:

a) Medical Marijuana was not flagged because of political content or affiliation. It was flagged because medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law, therefore isn't eligible for tax exempt status.
b) As testified to by IRS agents to the House Oversight Committee, ACORN groups were scrutinized because the agency thought they were old organizations attempting to apply as new ones, not because of political content or affiliation.
c) Only 7 groups with "progressive" in their name were flagged and all 7 were promptly approved.
d) No groups with "Occupy" in their name were flagged.
e) 100% of groups identified as "Tea party" or deemed conservative, were flagged.
f) At last check, of the nearly 300 conservative groups targeted and flagged, only a little over a third of them has received approval.

What a dishonest load of liberal propaganda... For both Pete and ThinkProgress, it's par for the course.
Click to expand...
Here is conservative propaganda written by Rep. Darrell Issa using government resources which is illegal under the Hatch act: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/4-7-2014-IRS-Staff-Report-w-appendix.pdf

As for you claiming their were nearly 300 hundred conservative groups targeted is nothing more than a steaming pile of dog poo as this report clearly explains that there were 96 with "Tea Party", "Patriots" or "9/12" in their name: Investigator Explains Why 'Progressives' Were Not In IRS Report
 
respecthelect said:
what liberal would ever falsify data?

Obama may ask for a special prosecutor to find out why it took so long for his operatives to invent a story? The irs began suppressing conservative votes at least as early as 2010, why did it take so long to fabricate a cover story? Lois lerner tried to slip the breaking news into a friday briefing, thinking nobody would notice, so those operatives were obviously skilled in covering up, but why did it take them until recently to gin-up this newest pack of lies? What did they know and when did they know to falsify? Obama wants answers. Why were his operatives so slow? Why couldn't they concoct lies faster? Obama says, "it's not enough to lie, my operatives need to lie faster..."

.
Click to expand...
lmmfao
 
haymarket said:
:roll::dohSo this should be non stop on Fox news for the next few days?
Click to expand...

Why's that?

A far left website like ThinkProgress publishing a propaganda piece that distorts facts and misleads it's readers for political purposes, is pretty commonplace and isn't very newsworthy.
 
Grim17 said:
Why's that?

A far left website like ThinkProgress publishing a propaganda piece that distorts facts and misleads it's readers for political purposes, is pretty commonplace and isn't very newsworthy.
Click to expand...

so what is factually in error in the story?
 
haymarket said:
so what is factually in error in the story?
Click to expand...

The entire point of the article was to completely discredit the claim that conservative groups were singled out by the IRS for political reasons, while progressive weren't, in an effort to convince their readers.that the IRS political targeting scandal was manufactured by republicans and no wrong doing by the IRS ever took place.

Here's an example of an "untruth" from the very first paragraph:

A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities.
Click to expand...

1. The part in red does not contradict the part highlighted in black. Being on the BOLO list and receiving systematic scrutiny based on political beliefs are 2 different things. A group can be on the BOLO list and not be referred for further scrutiny, which was the case for the progressive groups listed, but not so for even 1 of the nearly 300 tea party and conservative groups.

From the IRS Staff Report:

The IRS’s independent inspector general has repeatedly confirmed the Ways and Means
Committee’s assessment. During the Oversight Committee’s July 2013 hearing, TIGTA J.
Russell George told Members that “progressive” groups were not subjected to the same
systematic treatment as Tea Party applicants. He testified:

With respect to the 298 cases that the IRS selected for political review, as of the
end of May 2012, three have the word “progressive” in the organization’s name;
another four were used—are used, “progress,” none of the 298 cases selected by
the IRS, as of May 2012, used the name “Occupy.”

Mr. George also informed Congress that at least 14 organizations with “progressive” in their
name were not held up and scrutinized by the IRS.110 “In total,” Mr. George wrote, “30 percent
of the organizations we identified with the words ‘progress’ or ‘progressive’ in their names
were process as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent
of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were
processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit.”
Click to expand...

2. In bold, it quoted Issa saying that the scrutiny was based on "their political beliefs.” , which is a the heart of this scandal and as you can plainly see in red, the article included ACORN successors and medical marijuana organizations that were on the BOLO list, as evidence that Issa was wrong and proof that progressive groups were also targeted based on their political beliefs and advocacy.

As I stated on page 1, ACORN groups were NOT put on the BOLO list because of their political beliefs and possible activities. Robert Choi, the director of EO Rulings and Agreements until December 2010, explained in his testimony that the IRS had objective concerns about rebranded ACORN affiliates that had nothing to do with the organization’s political views. The primary concern about the ACORN successor groups, according to Choi, was whether the groups were legitimate new entities or part of an “abusive” scheme to continue an old entity under a new name.

As for medical marijuana organizations, they were flagged because they are applying for tax exempt status, when they are not eligible to receive tax exempt status. It had nothing to do with political beliefs...

The inclusion of both those groups as evidence that progressive groups were also flagged based on their political beliefs, is what I consider a lie by omission. That, along with the article implying that being on the BOLO list, equates to systematic scrutiny, is more than enough for me to describe this article for what it really is... A dishonest piece of liberal propaganda designed to deceive it's readers into falsely believing that conservative groups were not singled out by the IRS based on their political beliefs, and that the entire scandal is a work of fiction by congressional republicans.
 
Grim17 said:
The entire point of the article was to completely discredit the claim that conservative groups were singled out by the IRS for political reasons, while progressive weren't, in an effort to convince their readers.that the IRS political targeting scandal was manufactured by republicans and no wrong doing by the IRS ever took place.
Click to expand...

It seems that your anger is because of the way the information is being characterized in the article which differs with your own particular views on the subject. The basic reality here is that both liberal and conservative groups were investigated.
 
haymarket said:
both liberal and conservative groups were investigated.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's a year too late to change the story now. Additionally, most conservative groups still haven't been adjudicated, while every liberal group has. Most union and other liberal bias groups have been politicking for years, while conservative opinion is suppressed. Elections tend to go your way, when you use the power of government to shut your opponent up. Illegal, but it works for liberals.

So much for allowing everyone to speak? Seems like IRS applications are a tad more complicated than bringing photo ID to vote? Why is it voter suppression to ask for a photo ID from an illegal alien, but silencing conservatives with piles of paperwork and delays is not?

.
 
Respecthelect said:
Sorry, it's a year too late to change the story now. Additionally, most conservative groups still haven't been adjudicated, while every liberal group has. Most union and other liberal bias groups have been politicking for years, while conservative opinion is suppressed. Elections tend to go your way, when you use the power of government to shut your opponent up. Illegal, but it works for liberals.

So much for allowing everyone to speak? Seems like IRS applications are a tad more complicated than bringing photo ID to vote? Why is it voter suppression to ask for a photo ID from an illegal alien, but silencing conservatives with piles of paperwork and delays is not?

.
Click to expand...

Do you want groups to get special tax status without being checked out?
 
haymarket said:
It seems that your anger is because of the way the information is being characterized in the article which differs with your own particular views on the subject.
Click to expand...


I'm not angry at all... I'm quite used to this type of dishonest, yellow jounalism, especially from left wing bloggers like them.


The basic reality here is that both liberal and conservative groups were investigated.
Click to expand...


Congratulations, you have just engaged in the same blatant dishonesty that ThinkProgress did...

The basic reality here is, you completely misrepresent the truth of what the IRS engaged in when you make misleading comments like that, which of course was precisely your intent.

What I would really like to know, is why being honest is such a struggle for you, for left wing blogs like ThinkProgress, and for so many other liberals and progressives around the country? Are the people and the policies you support so bad, so dishonest and so unjustifiable, that lying and distorting the truth has becomes a necessity for your ideological survival?

The facts in this case are crystal clear, which explains why you didn't addressed them and instead chose to distort and misrepresent them instead.
 
haymarket said:
Do you want groups to get special tax status without being checked out?
Click to expand...

I want the government out of the speech-determining business. If a law requires the government to decide which speech is OK and which is not, that is bad law. Find a different means to accomplish whatever goal, because government can not adjudicate speech - it's un-American.

.
 
Respecthelect said:
I want the government out of the speech-determining business. If a law requires the government to decide which speech is OK and which is not, that is bad law. Find a different means to accomplish whatever goal, because government can not adjudicate speech - it's un-American.

.
Click to expand...

I do not understand. How does a tax status deny free speech?
 
Those with permission slips get to speak and those without permission slips are barred from collecting funds to get their message out. Tax stifles speech. It's almost the definition. If you tax it, it isn't free, is it?

.
 
Grim17 said:
Not to mention it's misleading load of partisan BS, designed to fool the lazy, the weak minded and the unintelligent... It also gives ideological robots some phony talking points they can use to distract from the true IRS scandal which has become a very painful ordeal for them.

Oh, and before someone from the left foolishly challenges me, the reason the article is misleading partisan nonsense is:

a) Medical Marijuana was not flagged because of political content or affiliation. It was flagged because medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law, therefore isn't eligible for tax exempt status.
b) As testified to by IRS agents to the House Oversight Committee, ACORN groups were scrutinized because the agency thought they were old organizations attempting to apply as new ones, not because of political content or affiliation.
c) Only 7 groups with "progressive" in their name were flagged and all 7 were promptly approved.
d) No groups with "Occupy" in their name were flagged.
e) 100% of groups identified as "Tea party" or deemed conservative, were flagged.
f) At last check, of the nearly 300 conservative groups targeted and flagged, only a little over a third of them has received approval.

What a dishonest load of liberal propaganda... For both Pete and ThinkProgress, it's par for the course.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of advantages in the democratic strategy of pandering to the dumbest 50% of the population. You don't have to be honest and you don't have to have facts. You can say whatever you think the dumbasses want to hear and they'll vote for you. It makes things easy. It was a brilliant strategy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom