IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#2,151
#2,151
lawgator1 said:
Very cleverly written. The title and the article imply that the lower level staff were paying closer attention to conservative groups based on ideology and that supervisors knew of it as it was going on. But if you read carefully (and I know that when it comes to Fox and Judicial Watch, in particular, you have to be very exact), that is not what this says. It says supervisors became aware of the fact that they were getting closer scrutiny as the controversy came to light, not as it was occurring. Big difference, but I get why Judicial Watch and Fox would obfuscate the difference.

My position remains the same. Get rid of the exemption. No political group can call itself a community group to get the tax break. That way no one can claim they were targeted just because there happened to be so many more of them in a given period than the other side. Eliminates abuse, or a claim of abuse.
Click to expand...
I believe it was just a rogue agent in the Cincinnati office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,153
#2,153
goodness LG. that's like saying there's a NY Times rogue reporter being biased for the DNC and no one realizes it.

the fact is, when you hire people with the same politics and agenda, you don't need to give step by step instructions. a wink and a nod with the understanding that liberals will attack conservatives.

when liberals place other liberal activists in office of power, this is what you get. one has to be pretty dumb, blind or both to not understand this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,154
#2,154
joevol320 said:
goodness LG. that's like saying there's a NY Times rogue reporter being biased for the DNC and no one realizes it.

the fact is, when you hire people with the same politics and agenda, you don't need to give step by step instructions. a wink and a nod with the understanding that liberals will attack conservatives.

when liberals place other liberal activists in office of power, this is what you get. one has to be pretty dumb, blind or both to not understand this.
Click to expand...


So your evidence is that there was probably a wink and a nod because, well, that's human nature?

Convenient you ignore that, due to the flash in the pan popularity of Tea Party groups, they were springing up like fungus on a used mop, and hugely outnumbered the applications of groups with a more left ideology. Convenient you ignore that this explains why it would appear, to the uneducated partisan or the delusional hack, that the TP was getting targeted soooooo much more.

Again, eliminate the loophole. Problem solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,155
#2,155
lawgator1 said:
Very cleverly written. The title and the article imply that the lower level staff were paying closer attention to conservative groups based on ideology and that supervisors knew of it as it was going on. But if you read carefully (and I know that when it comes to Fox and Judicial Watch, in particular, you have to be very exact), that is not what this says. It says supervisors became aware of the fact that they were getting closer scrutiny as the controversy came to light, not as it was occurring. Big difference, but I get why Judicial Watch and Fox would obfuscate the difference.

My position remains the same. Get rid of the exemption. No political group can call itself a community group to get the tax break. That way no one can claim they were targeted just because there happened to be so many more of them in a given period than the other side. Eliminates abuse, or a claim of abuse.
Click to expand...

Is this the same way the DNC is implying the Russians hacked the emails and gave them over to wikileaks?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,156
#2,156
Grand Vol said:
Is this the same way the DNC is implying the Russians hacked the emails and gave them over to wikileaks?
Click to expand...


Huh?

They are saying that initial reviews by cyber security think it was by the Russians. From what I read, it is strongly suspected based on the nature of the breach and how it occurred. One of Clinton's people was on Fox yesterday saying we don't know for sure, its being investigated by a number of agencies.

It just came up a week ago. Sheesz, give them a chance to examine it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,157
#2,157
lawgator1 said:
Huh?

They are saying that initial reviews by cyber security think it was by the Russians. From what I read, it is strongly suspected based on the nature of the breach and how it occurred. One of Clinton's people was on Fox yesterday saying we don't know for sure, its being investigated by a number of agencies.

It just came up a week ago. Sheesz, give them a chance to examine it.
Click to expand...

So now we need to give the authorities a chance to investigate but Trump needs to release his business returns to prove he's not in be with the Russians?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,158
#2,158
lawgator1 said:
Huh?

They are saying that initial reviews by cyber security think it was by the Russians. From what I read, it is strongly suspected based on the nature of the breach and how it occurred. One of Clinton's people was on Fox yesterday saying we don't know for sure, its being investigated by a number of agencies.

It just came up a week ago. Sheesz, give them a chance to examine it.
Click to expand...

lol

You were the one that came in with the outlandish story about Russians and Trump and the Russians giving such information to Wikileaks like it was some sort of plot out of a Tom Clancy novel.

Let's see...DNC gets hacked, the story immediately turns away from the content of the emails to "OMG! OMG! Russians!" And not a shred of evidence mind you.

IRS actively targets conservative groups as far back as 2011 with FBI reports verifying it. As well as the IRS commissioner being held in contempt and the central figure in the scandal refusing to testify and retiring pretty quickly.

Which one sounds far more plausible given the way this Administration has acted the past seven years?
 
#2,159
#2,159
Grand Vol said:
lol

You were the one that came in with the outlandish story about Russians and Trump and the Russians giving such information to Wikileaks like it was some sort of plot out of a Tom Clancy novel.

Let's see...DNC gets hacked, the story immediately turns away from the content of the emails to "OMG! OMG! Russians!" And not a shred of evidence mind you.

IRS actively targets conservative groups as far back as 2011 with FBI reports verifying it. As well as the IRS commissioner being held in contempt and the central figure in the scandal refusing to testify and retiring pretty quickly.

Which one sounds far more plausible given the way this Administration has acted the past seven years?
Click to expand...


I came up with it?

What planet are you on?

That the Russians would favor Trump has been a topic of conversation for months. And it is based on the comments Trump has made about his positions on the Ukraine and NATO.

That Assange hates Clinton has been known for years.

That the Russians appear to have done the hack is new, but that's because it just came out a week ago. All cybersecurity people I've seen spoken to say based on the evidence that it is highly likely that the Russians did the hack.

To surmise that the Russians did the hack and gave it to Assange to release so as to help the candidate they prefer, Trump, isn't some sort of strange spy novel scenario. Its just a pretty obvious explanation for all of the above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,162
#2,162
golfballs said:
[twitter]1009928105421615105[/twitter]
Click to expand...


That's a bit misleading. The notes show that those organizations were not targeted due to being conservative, but rather political at all, using what was supposed to be an exemption for social groups.

Now, it is true that it might appear that conservative groups were disproportionately affected. But that ignores that it was conservative groups that had latched onto abuse of the exemption en masse at the time.

So yet again, the right stops it analysis just short of where it needs to go to give it proper context.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,163
#2,163
lawgator1 said:
That's a bit misleading. The notes show that those organizations were not targeted due to being conservative, but rather political at all, using what was supposed to be an exemption for social groups.

Now, it is true that it might appear that conservative groups were disproportionately affected. But that ignores that it was conservative groups that had latched onto abuse of the exemption en masse at the time.

So yet again, the right stops it analysis just short of where it needs to go to give it proper context.
Click to expand...

Context? Like the fact you’re commenting in a thread about the IRS targeting conservative groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#2,165
#2,165
lawgator1 said:
That's a bit misleading. The notes show that those organizations were not targeted due to being conservative, but rather political at all, using what was supposed to be an exemption for social groups.

Now, it is true that it might appear that conservative groups were disproportionately affected. But that ignores that it was conservative groups that had latched onto abuse of the exemption en masse at the time.

So yet again, the right stops it analysis just short of where it needs to go to give it proper context.
Click to expand...


So by your logic.....black people aren’t treated any differently by the police.....they just happen to be more criminals that are Black?

Nope.
You’re wrong again.
(And it appears a closet racist)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top