IRS targeting conservative groups

[Kraenen]

And yet every single statement past the first one says they weren't.

ITS BENGHAZI 2.0! COVER UP!

I bet you that Obama personally instructed the IRS to do this.

and Hilary was involved somehow too don't forget her

[Naxere]

300 organizations targeted for review.

75 were conservative groups.

Clearly, only conservatives were targeted.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-a...rvative-groups

In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, Lerner said. Of those, about a quarter were singled out because they had "tea party" or "patriot" somewhere in their applications.

[Roose]

The blaze is always accurate and unbiased...

[Kraenen]

response: "...Lerner’s earlier claim that the IRS looked for groups that included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status."
in the article.

Let me be clear, if it comes out this is all a big miscommunication: My official stance is: Good. I would be just as appalled if they were targeting groups with liberal affiliations.

No you wouldn't. Haha.

Do you know what the word included means? Here's my list of groceries: apples, bananas, oranges, rasberries, plums, blueberries, waffles, and syrup.
It includes oranges and apples. (take a hint)

[GreatSageCorban]

The blaze is always accurate and unbiased...

and the AP trumps your source dismissal. (Erenax you have a 6th sense.)

No you wouldn't. Haha.

Do you know what the word included means? Here's my list of groceries: apples, bananas, oranges, rasberries, plums, blueberries, waffles, and syrup.
Now, it includes oranges and apples. (take a hint)

Now your pretending to know my views? And I'm not getting the attempt to talk down to me here. Please elaborate. Why would I be ok with the IRS targeting liberal organizations?

[Chrysia]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-a...rvative-groups

Is that somehow a refutation of my statement? Here's a question, what's 1/4 of 300?

[Naxere]

Is that somehow a refutation of my statement? Here's a question, what's 1/4 of 300?

No, it's called a source. Should try it some time.

[edit] To clarify, of course only conservatives weren't targeted. That wasn't the original complaint. If you'd have read the article, it says they were targeted for a specific reason based on profiling.

[Tinykong]

and the AP trumps your source dismissal. (Erenax you have a 6th sense.)

[Roose] casts MMO-C Source Dismissal at the blaze.
[AP] casts Intervene on the blaze.
MMO-C Source Dismissal fails.

[Faroth]

You don't get it, the SPLC and the FBI have seen an increase of 900 new "patriot" "sovereign citizen" "minute men" "tea party" since 2008. These groups are armed, dangerous (especially to law enforcement), and due to their internet chatter, they are now being singled out because of the deaths and attempted crimes they have committed. If you find me a liberal movement that is armed, disparaging public servants, sending threats to judges, sheriffs, president, etc, and blatantly violating US and state laws, then yea they should be singled out.

F'ing dirty colonists are the problem. Parliament should have slit their throats the first whisper of revolution.

Not paying taxes, threatening British troops, blatantly violating the laws of the crown.

Oh wait, that was a bad government. Today's government is awesome and these people should all be put down like dogs.

(I'm not actually versed on details, I'm just being obstinant)

[Kraenen]

and the AP trumps your source dismissal. (Erenax you have a 6th sense.)


Now your pretending to know my views? And I'm not getting the attempt to talk down to me here. Please elaborate. Why would I be ok with the IRS targeting liberal organizations?

I have no reason to believe you would. Your post history shows how biased you are towards the right wing. Also did you understand my example of 'included'?

[fluffhead]

any news site set up by Glenn Beck loses all credibility in my books.

[Tinykong]

F'ing dirty colonists are the problem. Parliament should have slit their throats the first whisper of revolution.

Not paying taxes, threatening British troops, blatantly violating the laws of the crown.

Oh wait, that was a bad government. Today's government is awesome and these people should all be put down like dogs.

(I'm not actually versed on details, I'm just being obstinant)

How dare you call into question the practices and actions of our government. Treason!

[Kraenen]

F'ing dirty colonists are the problem. Parliament should have slit their throats the first whisper of revolution.

Not paying taxes, threatening British troops, blatantly violating the laws of the crown.

Oh wait, that was a bad government. Today's government is awesome and these people should all be put down like dogs.

(I'm not actually versed on details, I'm just being obstinant)

Obstinate to a fault. Your comparison failed from the start.

[Chrysia]

No, it's called a source. Should try it some time.

[edit] To clarify, of course only conservatives weren't targeted. That wasn't the original complaint. If you'd have read the article, it says they were targeted for a specific reason based on profiling.

And again: Groups that are violently opposed to taxation were given greater scrutiny for tax exempt status. Profiling isn't always evil.

[zorkuus]

F'ing dirty colonists are the problem. Parliament should have slit their throats the first whisper of revolution.

Not paying taxes, threatening British troops, blatantly violating the laws of the crown.

Oh wait, that was a bad government. Today's government is awesome and these people should all be put down like dogs.

(I'm not actually versed on details, I'm just being obstinant)

No taxation without representation sounds fair enough to me, except there is representation now. These people just want to be free of the responsibilities that makes the country function.

[Naxere]

any news site set up by Glenn Beck loses all credibility in my books.

Sigh...Is the Associated Press good enough of a source or will you dismiss that as well? Lots of "shoot the messenger" going on here.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-a...rvative-groups

[GreatSageCorban]

Is that somehow a refutation of my statement? Here's a question, what's 1/4 of 300?

I don't believe the issue here is the number. That's mainly due to a lot of "what ifs" that neither you or I know. What if 75 is 100% of the conservative applications? What if the other 200 were churches, and the remainder liberal organizations?

The issue is that they admitted to specifically targeting conservative groups. Like filtering a key word search.

I have no reason to believe you would. Your post history shows how biased you are towards the right wing. Also did you understand my example of 'included'?

Then you don't know me very well. I just told you my views. I don't know how to further clarify it. I am not hypocritical in my "what is right, and what is wrong". (or to the best of my ability I try not to be.)

[Elegiac]

[marthsk]

A group that does not like taxes is targeted by IRS? Shocking.

http://bit.ly/15wEUip
"Sooner or later, you have to pay your taxes!"

[Elegiac]

I don't believe the issue here is the number. That's mainly due to a lot of "what ifs" that neither you or I know. What if 75 is 100% of the conservative applications? What if the other 200 were churches, and the remainder liberal organizations?

The issue is that they admitted to specifically targeting conservative groups. Like filtering a key word search.

For the third time: Groups that are violently opposed to taxation were given greater scrutiny for tax exempt status. Profiling isn't always evil.