• 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!

IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show[W:249]

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

the truth
i realize it is usually foreign to your side

You guys will bend over backwards to avoid whats right in front of you.

You make up scandals when a Republican is in office and ignore ACTUAL corruption and scandals when your party is running things.

You guys would be up in arms if Bush's AG lied under OATH TWICE.

You would be wanting the entire Bush administration marched lockstep into a Federal Penn if the IRS exclusively targeted left wing political action groups .

The only problem with that is he has integrity, which is more than I can say for your President who's been lying and trying to intimidate people since 2008.

Hey, we just want questions answered. If your party has nothing to hide because it didn't do anything wrong, why is it stonewalling ?

Playing stupid ?
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

You mean the list that lumps religious groups like the Progressive Baptist Church, medical groups like the "Progressive Care Center", and political 527's and compares them to politically activist 501(c)(4)'s? You mean the list Fox News completely misrepresented? The one that also mentions 47 groups with patriot or constitution that were approved during the time that 3 'conservative' were approved?
Fox didn't compile any list they just took the information and numbers from the Washington post analysis and created a chart. if you have a problem with the numbers then direct it at the Washington post not Fox
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

the information and numbers came from a Washington post analysis of IRS data they did not give a list

View attachment 67148148

"Groups with the word “progressive” in their names suffered no similar slowdown. The number of approvals for those groups increased each year, from 17 in 2009 to 30 in 2012, the data show."

Groups that sought tax-exempt status say IRS dealings were a nightmare - Washington Post

it is very safe to assume groups with "progressive" in thier name are liberal
How many of those Tea Party organizations exclusively or primarily deal with "social welfare?"
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

How many of those Tea Party organizations exclusively or primarily deal with "social welfare?"
If they was any violation why were they not denied? the wasn't they was just put in limbo for over 27 months, and most are still waiting
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Fox didn't compile any list they just took the information and numbers from the Washington post analysis and created a chart. if you have a problem with the numbers then direct it at the Washington post not Fox
So it's the Washington Posts fault for posting data that Fox News took out of context? Lets lets not forget that you took Fox News' dishonest report and mischaracterized it even further, changing "only 3 groups with Tea Party in their names" to "only 3 conservative groups.

But everyone else is dishonest. Everyone else has no character. Everything is someone else’s fault.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

If they was any violation why were they not denied? the wasn't they was just put in limbo for over 27 months, and most are still waiting
I think it depends upon whether they are seeking a 501c3 or 501c4 nonprofit status. Here is a link from your OP article, maybe it will help:

Questions and Answers on 501(c) Organizations
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Did you read the thread? no you didnt becuase if you did you would have seen the post with the list i was refering. to here it is



If you would inform your self and know a little what the hell your talking about you would look less like a fool
that's your list of 65 progressive organizations?

now, still waiting for the criteria used to identify them as progressive
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

How many of those Tea Party organizations exclusively or primarily deal with "social welfare?"

All of them??? It was reported that none were declined status...and the IRS couldn't be wrong...:lamo
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

that's your list of 65 progressive organizations?

now, still waiting for the criteria used to identify them as progressive
liberalism is a mental disorder you just proved it. I never said i had a list of 65 progressive groups
if you want the list give Washington Post a call. they didn't give a list they just wrote in there IRS analysis that 65 progressive groups were approved
I know you need to try to be civil on forum post but dam people like you make it impossible
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

liberalism is a mental disorder you just proved it. I never said i had a list of 65 progressive groups
if you want the list give Washington Post a call. they didn't give a list they just wrote in there IRS analysis that 65 progressive groups were approved
I know you need to try to be civil on forum post but dam people like you make it impossible

YOU can't identify the 65 firms you insist are liberal organizations
YOU can't explain what criteria was used to label them as progressive
yet i am the one who is the problem
yep, clear sign: you are a republican
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show


Good for you! and your point is? Perhaps this:

For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied.
from your link

Again, considering none were denied, all were exclusively or primarily deal with "social welfare" else they would have been denied???
 
Last edited:
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Good for you! and your point is? Perhaps this:


from your link

Again, considering none were denied, all were exclusively or primarily deal with "social welfare" else they would have been denied???

I have no idea. I don't blame you for being pissed, but I think if you are blaming the Obama administration for this, in my opinion, you're pissing into the wind.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

I have no idea. I don't blame you for being pissed, but I think if you are blaming the Obama administration for this, in my opinion, you're pissing into the wind.

I'm pissed that you have no idea what your point is??? nope :lamo

As to blaming the Obama administration, I have not yet as there is no evidence of it yet and frankly I doubt if there were it would ever surface. BUT the folks around him have certainly bumbled the messaging of this issue. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that BHO is seething over these blunders as they ensure that his efforts will be even that much more difficult in the near future.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

liberalism is a mental disorder you just proved it. I never said i had a list of 65 progressive groups
if you want the list give Washington Post a call. they didn't give a list they just wrote in there IRS analysis that 65 progressive groups were approved
I know you need to try to be civil on forum post but dam people like you make it impossible
The Washington Post did not say that 65 progressive groups were approved.

Where did your claim come from? Where did any legitimate news service say that 65 progressive groups were approved while only 3 conservative groups were approved?

Even the completely disingenuous Fox report didnt go that far. And they ignored 47 groups that contained the words patriot and constitution which were approved over the same period.

What the Washinton Post article said is that the IRS approved a total of 65 groups which contained the words "progress" or "progressive" for ANY non profit status. This included religious groups, medical groups, and other groups that have nothing to do with politics. It also included legitimate progressive 527 political groups.

What we do know is that the vast majority of the groups which were investigated DESERVED to be investigated. So too did another 144 groups. It's possible/probable that the group of 144 which wasn't investigated contained a higher percentage of liberal groups than were in the 298 which were investigated. The scandal is that groups weren't investigated.


(FYI, you're not civil)
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

wrong
it is posts such as yours that are the shameless displays of partisanship in this matter
when testifying before congress the IG was asked if he saw any indication that the (objectionable) screening methods used by the IRS employees
had any indication of being politically biased
his response
"NO"

he, the IG, observed no partisanship
but you and those of your political stripe have certainly made this a partisan political matter
where it did not actually exist
This post is a great example of what happens when blind partisanship meets intellectual dishonesty.

*NEWSFLASH*

The IRS THEMSELVES have already admitted there was a bias. It isn't like this is some wild allegation by conservatives. It came directly from the IRS. Are you really going to sit here and pretend that this fact is somehow irrelevant?
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

This post is a great example of what happens when blind partisanship meets intellectual dishonesty.

*NEWSFLASH*

The IRS THEMSELVES have already admitted there was a bias. It isn't like this is some wild allegation by conservatives. It came directly from the IRS. Are you really going to sit here and pretend that this fact is somehow irrelevant?
I can see how you would think that, but it isn't exactly the case. The IRS has admitted to and apologized for using "tea party", "patriots", and "912" as part of the criteria to determine excess political activity.

This is certainly politically insensitive, and it is certainly unacceptable for an organization like the IRS to engage in anything that looks remotely like partisanship. However it is not bias.

The reason is that almost all abuse by 501c groups after citizens united was done by conservative groups.

Before citizens united, political spending by 501c organizations was small and and almost exclusively liberal. The NRA was about the only legitimate conservative 501c4 group. After citizens united, political spending by liberal groups remained essentially constant, but conservatives spending exploded, from a few percent to 85-90%.

It's not biased if most of your investigations target conservatives if conservatives are committing most of the abuse. Just like it wasn't abusive for the IRS to examine liberal groups which exploded under Bush.

We can't like abuses when they benefit us, and call it tyrannical when they don't.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

This post is a great example of what happens when blind partisanship meets intellectual dishonesty.

*NEWSFLASH*

The IRS THEMSELVES have already admitted there was a bias. It isn't like this is some wild allegation by conservatives. It came directly from the IRS. Are you really going to sit here and pretend that this fact is somehow irrelevant?

the acting commissioner, miller, never made such an acknowledgement
when testifying, he made a point to note that no groups were "targeted"
while he did not endorse the methodology used to sort those cases approvable by merit (application information only) versus those requiring deeper analysis, he noted, as did the IG, that there was NO political partisanship evident by those actions

again, the partisanship here is all yours, and that of your ilk
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

I can see how you would think that, but it isn't exactly the case. The IRS has admitted to and apologized for using "tea party", "patriots", and "912" as part of the criteria to determine excess political activity.

This is certainly politically insensitive, and it is certainly unacceptable for an organization like the IRS to engage in anything that looks remotely like partisanship. However it is not bias.





I guess you wont admit it to you actually see it for your self



Miller under Oath admits it was Partisans

pull your head out of you ass

It's not biased if most of your investigations target conservatives if conservatives are committing most of the abuse. Just like it wasn't abusive for the IRS to examine liberal groups which exploded under Bush.

We can't like abuses when they benefit us, and call it tyrannical when they don't.

If the conservatives groups was committing most of the abuse as you falsely claim then why wasn't any of them denied status? not one was denied they was just put in limbo for over 27 months. during that same time two liberal group were denied status. so compare the two. who were the abusers?

You need to stop getting your info from msnbc mother jones and buzz feed because they treat you like mushroom they keep you in the dark and feed you crap. and don't claim you don't because if you didn't you would have known what i just told you

educate your self im not out to make you look like fool but you just make it so easy to do so
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Obama's Gestapo at the IRS also targeted Jewish Groups

IRS Crosses Green Line | Washington Free Beacon

A Washington Free Beacon investigation has identified at least five pro-Israel organizations that have been audited by the IRS in the wake of a coordinated campaign by White House-allied activist groups in 2009 and 2010.

These organizations, some of which are too afraid of government reprisals to speak publicly, say in interviews with the Free Beacon that they now believe the IRS actions may have been coordinated by the Obama administration.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

the acting commissioner, miller, never made such an acknowledgement
when testifying, he made a point to note that no groups were "targeted"
while he did not endorse the methodology used to sort those cases approvable by merit (application information only) versus those requiring deeper analysis, he noted, as did the IG, that there was NO political partisanship evident by those actions

again, the partisanship here is all yours, and that of your ilk
How is it partisan to want an investigation after it has been exposed that there was wrongdoing by a government agency? EVERYONE should want a complete and thorough investigation. The IRS wields enormous power and they are not subject to the same due process laws that govern the legal system. If there is even the slightest hint that they have abused or are abusing that power then they need to be investigated. I seriously doubt that you would be of the same opinion about this if it involved liberal groups during the Bush administration.

For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone would want to prevent this. It would be along the same lines as arguing against auditing the federal reserve.:roll:
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

How is it partisan to want an investigation after it has been exposed that there was wrongdoing by a government agency? EVERYONE should want a complete and thorough investigation. The IRS wields enormous power and they are not subject to the same due process laws that govern the legal system. If there is even the slightest hint that they have abused or are abusing that power then they need to be investigated. I seriously doubt that you would be of the same opinion about this if it involved liberal groups during the Bush administration.

For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone would want to prevent this. It would be along the same lines as arguing against auditing the federal reserve.:roll:

it is partisan when you - and those like you - insist that it was only 'conservative' organizations whose applications were being held up
that belief is not true
but that is why your arguments are found to be partisan ones
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

it is partisan when you - and those like you - insist that it was only 'conservative' organizations whose applications were being held up
that belief is not true
but that is why your arguments are found to be partisan ones

Report: One-Third of Tax-Exempt Groups Scrutinized by IRS Were Not Conservative - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

This info shouldn't come as a huge surprise, since it only takes a few hours sorting through publically available data. It's been apparent that there was no real political bias. However reality has not really been much of a deterrent.
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Report: One-Third of Tax-Exempt Groups Scrutinized by IRS Were Not Conservative - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

This info shouldn't come as a huge surprise, since it only takes a few hours sorting through publically available data. It's been apparent that there was no real political bias. However reality has not really been much of a deterrent.

'no real political bias'? How do we know that? What was the premise for those '1/3 non-conservative' being scrutinized? Was it due to some specific words in their names? What was the depth of their scrutiny? How long did their approval take? All these questions were addressed in the IG report concerning the 'conservative groups'...fail

Further, per the IG report there were ~67,000 applications in '09 alone (both c3 & c4 which the 178 list includes). Is 178 of that ~67k a representative sample? Essentially what we know is what we still don't know...but the article proposes what we THINK we know...
 
Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Report: One-Third of Tax-Exempt Groups Scrutinized by IRS Were Not Conservative - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

This info shouldn't come as a huge surprise, since it only takes a few hours sorting through publically available data. It's been apparent that there was no real political bias. However reality has not really been much of a deterrent.

What desperate nonsense. So your point is that there was no political bias because only two thirds of the targeted groups were conservative? Really? That smells like desperation.:mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom