IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#176
#176
lawgator1 said:
There needs to be an investigation of this. Who, exactly, made the decision to subject these organizations to closer scrutiny?

And more importantly, why?
Click to expand...

Did you finally pull your head out of the sand?
 
#178
#178
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Wasn't that sentiment previously considered to be a witch hunt by the far right, TP'ers, etc?
Click to expand...

hog88 said:
Did you finally pull your head out of the sand?
Click to expand...


I said at the beginning there ought to be an investigation and I was fine with that.

I think the question we all have is whether these reviews were politically motivated. If so, there ought to be some pretty compelling evidence of it, and if so the people responsible need to be fired. If not, its still bad and a mistake, but its not "fire people bad," imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#179
#179
lawgator1 said:
I said at the beginning there ought to be an investigation and I was fine with that.

I think the question we all have is whether these reviews were politically motivated. If so, there ought to be some pretty compelling evidence of it, and if so the people responsible need to be fired. If not, its still bad and a mistake, but its not "fire people bad," imo.
Click to expand...

No, you have been adamant that this was a small group of employees in one office, Cincinnati. You have also be adamant that this could in no way be an organized and coordinated targeting.

Now that we know the targeting reaches into multiple offices and all the way to D.C. it is almost certainly a coordinated effort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#180
#180
I don't think this was any kind of top level organized effort. Just an effect of living in a super partisan world where people choke on the bait. The Left has done everything in their power to paint the Tea Party as radical loons that are a threat. Not surprised that a government agency, filled with government employees, who are most likely left, would "target" Tea Party groups.

I also wish somebody would clarify exactly what 501(c)(4)'s can do. It seems to me they really push the limit.
 
#182
#182
lawgator1 said:
I said at the beginning there ought to be an investigation and I was fine with that.

I think the question we all have is whether these reviews were politically motivated. If so, there ought to be some pretty compelling evidence of it, and if so the people responsible need to be fired. If not, its still bad and a mistake, but its not "fire people bad," imo.
Click to expand...

You keep using that "if" they were politically motivated.

At this point there is no doubt they were since the terms used to target were political positions.

Now perhaps you mean was this an effort to politically intimidate/harm some particular people because of their political views. That we do not know yet.

It was political targeting though - that has been established.
 
#183
#183
volinbham said:
You keep using that "if" they were politically motivated.

At this point there is no doubt they were since the terms used to target were political positions.

Now perhaps you mean was this an effort to politically intimidate/harm some particular people because of their political views. That we do not know yet.

It was political targeting though - that has been established.
Click to expand...

No, no, no this is a good thing remember? No politics involved, in fact the IRS was just protecting the Tea Party against fraudulent groups using their name in an attempt to be exempt.
 
#185
#185
growing

Reporter Claims IRS Harassment After Tough Obama Interview | The Dana Show

St. Louis Reporter Larry Conners revealed via Facebook yesterday that he has been “hammered” by the IRS since his much-discussed interview with President Obama. Conners, a veteran reporter, asked tough, but fair question during the interview which was slammed by progressives in media. Conners says:


Shortly after I did my April 2012 interview with President Obama, my wife, friends and some viewers suggested that I might need to watch out for the IRS.
I don’t accept “conspiracy theories”, but I do know that almost immediately after the interview, the IRS started hammering me.
At the time, I dismissed the “co-incidence”, but now, I have concerns … after revelations about the IRS targeting various groups and their members.
Originally, the IRS apologized for red-flagging conservative groups and their members if they had “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their name.
Today, there are allegations that the IRS focused on various groups and/or individuals questioning or criticizing government spending, taxes, debt or how the government is run … any involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, or social economic reform/movement.
In that April 2012 interview, I questioned President Obama on several topics: the Buffet Rule, his public remarks about the Supreme Court before the ruling on the Affordable Care Act. I also asked why he wasn’t doing more to help Sen. Claire McCaskill who at that time was expected to lose. The Obama interview caught fire and got wide-spread attention because I questioned his spending.
I said some viewers expressed concern, saying they think he’s “out of touch” because of his personal and family trips in the midst of our economic crisis.
The President’s face clearly showed his anger; afterwards, his staff which had been so polite … suddenly went cold.
That’s to be expected, and I can deal with that just as I did with President George H. Bush’s staff when he didn’t like my questions.
Journalistic integrity is of the utmost importance to me. My job is to ask the hard questions, because I believe viewers have a right to be well-informed. I cannot and will not promote anyone’s agenda – political or otherwise – at the expense of the reporting the truth.
What I don’t like to even consider … is that because of the Obama interview … the IRS put a target on me.
Can I prove it? At this time, no.
But it is a fact that since that April 2012 interview … the IRS has been pressuring me.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#188
#188
volinbham said:
You keep using that "if" they were politically motivated.

At this point there is no doubt they were since the terms used to target were political positions.

Now perhaps you mean was this an effort to politically intimidate/harm some particular people because of their political views. That we do not know yet.

It was political targeting though - that has been established.
Click to expand...


I'd explain the faulty logic, but you already know it and are just pushing my buttons and I refuse to play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#190
#190
It would appear that this administration doesn't know crap about what is going on within the administration and it's departments.

1- Benghazi - POTUS didn't know about the deteriorating security, State Dept leaders don't know who reduced security and who denied the request for additional security, and why was our Ambassador there in the first place

2 - IRS Targeting - The IRS falls under the Executive Branch but no one knows who gave the ok, no one knew it was going on?

3 - AP Phone records - The AG can't even tell us what date he recused himself from the investigation!
 
#192
#192
lawgator1 said:
I'd explain the faulty logic, but you already know it and are just pushing my buttons and I refuse to play.
Click to expand...

Are you really still trying to defend this and deny that it was done for political reasons? It has been confirmed the targeting was not just limited to Cincinnati but was also going on in other offices including Washington D.C.
 
#194
#194
hog88 said:
It would appear that this administration doesn't know crap about what is going on within the administration and it's departments.

1- Benghazi - POTUS didn't know about the deteriorating security, State Dept leaders don't know who reduced security and who denied the request for additional security, and why was our Ambassador there in the first place

2 - IRS Targeting - The IRS falls under the Executive Branch but no one knows who gave the ok, no one knew it was going on?

3 - AP Phone records - The AG can't even tell us what date he recused himself from the investigation!
Click to expand...


The level of detail you want the POTUS to personally know as to every aspect of the federal government is shamefully ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#196
#196
lawgator1 said:
The level of detail you want the POTUS to personally know as to every aspect of the federal government is shamefully ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Quit being obtuse, I don't expect the POTUS to know what's going on in the day to day operation of the Executive branch.

My point is that it appears NO ONE knows what is going on! That points to a branch of incompetents. Are you satisfied with your government being administered by incompetents?
 
#197
#197
hog88 said:
Quit being obtuse, I don't expect the POTUS to know what's going on in the day to day operation of the Executive branch.

My point is that it appears NO ONE knows what is going on! That points to a branch of incompetents. Are you satisfied with your government being administered by incompetents?
Click to expand...


Of the three things you mentioned, the one that is most disconcerting would be the IRS flap, and I'm still waiting for that to come to a head before just willy nilly screeching that government tyranny is upon us.

And with regard to that the news broke Friday and on Monday Obama said it is outrageous if the TPers were singled out due to political bias. There will be investigations. I don't know what else he's supposed to do.

In fact, the criticism of the talking points on Benghazi is a direct result of the administration weighing in before knowing what really happened. Don't want to make that mistake again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#198
#198
hog88 said:
Quit being obtuse, I don't expect the POTUS to know what's going on in the day to day operation of the Executive branch.

My point is that it appears NO ONE knows what is going on! That points to a branch of incompetents. Are you satisfied with your government being administered by incompetents?
Click to expand...

He sees D and R and goes from there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#199
#199
lawgator1 said:
Of the three things you mentioned, the one that is most disconcerting would be the IRS flap, and I'm still waiting for that to come to a head before just willy nilly screeching that government tyranny is upon us.

And with regard to that the news broke Friday and on Monday Obama said it is outrageous if the TPers were singled out due to political bias. There will be investigations. I don't know what else he's supposed to do.

In fact, the criticism of the talking points on Benghazi is a direct result of the administration weighing in before knowing what really happened. Don't want to make that mistake again.
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother you one bit that no one at State knows who denied the request for extra security? Or why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top