IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

[VOLinthaNATI]

Oh I am well aware of the prevailing bias here which maintains that established relevant facts are wrong and irrelevant, whenever they do not like them. I don't know what you call that kind of behavior, but the only words which come to my mind are not flattering.

Clearly, right? I mean, Obama has bent over backwards to try and work with Republicans since he took office in 2009.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Oh I am well aware of the prevailing bias here which maintains that established relevant facts are wrong and irrelevant, whenever they do not like them. I don't know what you call that kind of behavior, but the only words which come to my mind are not flattering.

I laughed. It's almost like you made a good point, except that you didn't and everyone responded as they should have.

Whatever these mystery words you have in mind are probably apropos - for you.

 

[Vol Main]

All your "shoulds" are wonderful. Would be fun to see you argue with an IRS auditor about what "should be".

However, we are dealing with what "is". The IG report definitively states certain groups were targeted, those groups tended to be on one side of the political spectrum and such targeting was wrong.

I don't dispute that flagging only one side is wrong. But if a group has a caucus in the U.S. House, there is nothing unethical about flagging it and denying it exempt status.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I don't dispute that flagging only one side is wrong. But if a group has a caucus in the U.S. House, there is nothing unethical about flagging it and denying it exempt status.

this is stupid as hell and has been said in multiple ways.

 

[GAVol]

Oh I am well aware of the prevailing bias here which maintains that established relevant facts are wrong and irrelevant, whenever they do not like them. I don't know what you call that kind of behavior, but the only words which come to my mind are not flattering.

Please don't use unflattering words. At the rate you're going, you'll get offended by your own posts and start reporting yourself too.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Please don't use unflattering words. At the rate you're going, you'll get offended by your own posts and start reporting yourself too.

ruh roh. I've been reported.

 

[BeecherVol]

Ban dozier is warmin up.

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=3&

opcorn:

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Disparate treatment is illegal under the law. This occurred and was admitted to by the IRS.

What is so hard to understand? It is not an "allegation" being brought forward by an outside entity.

Now we are learning that this information was known and kept hidden from Congress by those who should have known better.

The conduct was illegal and takes on a particularly onerous meaning because it occurred up to and during a National Election cycle.

One could imagine the howls from LG if this occurred during the 2004 election cycle and was aimed at "progressive" organizations.

:clapping: How can I only like this 1 time?? I need 5 more like buttons for this right here!!

 

[lawgator1]

Disparate treatment is illegal under the law. This occurred and was admitted to by the IRS.

What is so hard to understand? It is not an "allegation" being brought forward by an outside entity.

Now we are learning that this information was known and kept hidden from Congress by those who should have known better.

The conduct was illegal and takes on a particularly onerous meaning because it occurred up to and during a National Election cycle.

One could imagine the howls from LG if this occurred during the 2004 election cycle and was aimed at "progressive" organizations.

Of course I would wonder and have questions. Of course I'd want it investigated.

I just wouldn't go around saying things so sweeping and antagonistic as "Bush knew!" or some such nonsense without, you know, facts.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Of course I would wonder and have questions. Of course I'd want it investigated.

I just wouldn't go around saying things so sweeping and antagonistic as "Bush knew!" or some such nonsense without, you know, facts.

:salute: yeah, sure you wouldn't do such a thing.

 

[DC_Vol]

I don't dispute that flagging only one side is wrong. But if a group has a caucus in the U.S. House, there is nothing unethical about flagging it and denying it exempt status.

So what exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Is it that the IRS screwed up by flagging conservative groups for review?

Is it that the IRS approved applications that should never have been approved?

Is it that you believe the law should be changed?

Or is there something else? I'm just confused as to what your point is.

 

[37L1]

Of course I would wonder and have questions. Of course I'd want it investigated.

I just wouldn't go around saying things so sweeping and antagonistic as "Bush knew!" or some such nonsense without, you know, facts.

Ha ha, you funny!

 

[GAVol]

Of course I would wonder and have questions. Of course I'd want it investigated.

I just wouldn't go around saying things so sweeping and antagonistic as "Bush knew!" or some such nonsense without, you know, facts.

Because we know you, of all people, would never be intentionally antagonistic.

 

[lawgator1]

Because we know you, of all people, would never be intentionally antagonistic.

Oh I'd be antagonistic.

But factually I'd be correct if for no other reason than not to give critics on the other side the ammo to prove that the outrage is based on partisan speculation rather than facts.

 

[hog88]

Oh I'd be antagonistic.

But factually I'd be correct if for no other reason than not to give critics on the other side the ammo to prove that the outrage is based on partisan speculation rather than facts.

lol:lol:

That's a good one. Factually correct, come on man.

 

[volinbham]

Oh I am well aware of the prevailing bias here which maintains that established relevant facts are wrong and irrelevant, whenever they do not like them. I don't know what you call that kind of behavior, but the only words which come to my mind are not flattering.

You have this annoying habit of making personal attacks when people don't agree with your opinion.

You see things a particular way and get all butt hurt when others don't praise your brilliance and instead point out specifically why they disagree with your analysis.

Grow up man.

 

[Vol Main]

You have this annoying habit of making personal attacks when people don't agree with your opinion.

You see things a particular way and get all butt hurt when others don't praise your brilliance and instead point out specifically why they disagree with your analysis.

Grow up man.

Man, you grow up.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Well, groups with big D Democrat in their name should not be tax exempt. If that is what they call themselves, then that should determine their tax status.

If an advocacy group does not want to be recognized as the Tea Party, then it should not name itself Tea Party.

Hmm..like the NDN??....NDN - A Progressive Think Tank and Advocacy Organization | NDN

 

[DC_Vol]

You have this annoying habit of making personal attacks when people don't agree with your opinion.

You see things a particular way and get all butt hurt when others don't praise your brilliance and instead point out specifically why they disagree with your analysis.

Grow up man.

The Dude abides.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The Dude abides.

That's, like, your opinion, man.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Man, you grow up.

:cray:

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

ah, my bad. I don't read or post much any more.

:cray:

 

[FLVOL_79]

SIAP..quite enjoyable to watch
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3nFEXr8Mrg[/youtube]

 

[Vol Main]

Ham: Grow up man.

Me: Man, you grow up.

Ham: No you grow up!

Me: No you grow up!