IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups During 2012 Election

An anonymous reader writes "A recurring theme in comments on Slashdot since the 9/11 attacks has been concern about the use of government power to monitor or suppress political activity unassociated with terrorism but rather based on ideology. It has just been revealed that the IRS has in fact done that. From the story: "The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election . . . Organizations were singled out because they included the words 'tea party' or 'patriot' in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said. 'That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review,' Lerner said . . . 'The IRS would like to apologize for that,' she added. . . . Lerner said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. . . . she told The AP that no high level IRS officials knew about the practice. Tea Party groups were livid on Friday. ... In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review. . . Tea Party groups weren't buying the idea that the decision to target them was solely the responsibility of low-level IRS workers. ... During the conference call it was stated that no disciplinary action had been taken by those who engaged in this activity. President Obama has previously joked about using the IRS to target people." So it's not how they choose cases for review (except when it is), and was not motivated by political bias (except that it was). Also at National Review, with more bite.

Comments

If your group is

[Anonymous Coward]

If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.

Re:If your group is

[cold fjord]

If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.

That tax revolt was against the previous regime (the British Empire), not the current government (United States of America). The Tea Party advocates for legislative reform of the tax code and containing spending, not revolts against the government. This is clearly a case of abuse of authority by a government agency intervening in the political process for the benefit of the current administration. You've got a pretty big evidentiary burden if you want to try to justify that.

Re:If your group is

[Austerity Empowers]

I call it "profiling".

Re:If your group is

[hedwards]

That's true. However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.

The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it. It means that the IRS needs to do a better job of enforcing the code.

There do appear to be some abuses of power here, but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.

Re:If your group is

[Myria]

If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.

That tax revolt was against the previous regime (the British Empire), not the current government (United States of America).

But the Tea Party was most certainly in the history of the United States.

Re:If your group is

[RabidReindeer]

If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.

That tax revolt was against the previous regime (the British Empire), not the current government (United States of America). The Tea Party advocates for legislative reform of the tax code and containing spending, not revolts against the government. This is clearly a case of abuse of authority by a government agency intervening in the political process for the benefit of the current administration. You've got a pretty big evidentiary burden if you want to try to justify that.

At the time, the "previous regime" was still the current regime, and the Boston Tea Party was a message from the taxpayers of that regime to their overseas overlords that if they wanted to levy taxes, they'd darned well better allow the locals some say-so in the process. The general revolt only came after the Crown refused to take the hints.

The majority of the modern-day self-identifying Tea Partiers don't show much understanding of that motivation. At best, they complain about "wasteful" taxation, at worst, what they really want is no taxation at all (just keep yore dam commie socialist gummint hands offa mine Social Securrity!)

Holding that sort of attitude doesn't exactly make the tax people think warmly about you, needless to say.

Nonetheless, targeting people based on their political positions is wrong, regardless of their philosophy.

Re:If your group is

[slick7]

I call it "profiling".

Quis custodiet ipsos custodet?

Re:If your group is

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true. However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.

The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it. It means that the IRS needs to do a better job of enforcing the code.

There do appear to be some abuses of power here, but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.

do you mean just like teachers unions?
mike

Re:If your group is

[PopeRatzo]

do you mean just like teachers unions?
mike

Mike, you can engage in political activity and still be a 501c3 or 4, but it can't be your primary activity.

An organization whose primary activity is political cannot be a non-profit according to those statutes. I'm sure even you would admit that the various teachers' unions are not primarily political organizations. Not as long as they are negotiating contracts, representing members, etc. There are a LOT of teachers in the US and the teachers' unions are very busy even in non-election years. You might be surprised to learn that there are lots of parts of the country where the locals do absolutely no political work at all.

Try this exercise: look up a few organizations that have the name "tea party" and/or "patriot" in their name and see how many of them meet the same criteria.

Re:If your group is

[Mashiki]

Clearly you're following a different Tea Party then I do.

Apparently you're following the OWS then. After all, they've actually tried to blow up bridges(Ohio) and have committed arson(Oklahoma) in the name of "overthrowing the government."

Re:If your group is

[cold fjord]

However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.

I see. So you want government officials to make judgments based on the name of the organization instead of what is on the application? Instead of what they actually do? Interesting. Probably not a good idea though.

The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it.

Under the law you can advocate for policy. If you don't like that, you try to change the law, not use the government to disadvantage your political opposition.

There do appear to be some abuses of power here,

That seems remarkably restrained. I think your eyesight is likely diminished by the targets of this being political groups you oppose . . . what what's a little overstep by the government if the outcome is agreeable, eh?.

But allow me to correct you - the IRS has admitted that it was wrong, over the line. They aren't hedging, why are you?

You find nothing truly troubling in the following?

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

. . . perhaps most troubling, those tea-party organizations were sent letters of inquiry demanding information that would seldom if ever be demanded of any other applicant in the process. The IRS demanded lists of donors, names of spouses and family members, detailed information about political views and associations — all of that “under penalties of perjury.” Many applicants dropped out of the process. The questions were remarkably invasive: For example, the IRS demanded to know not only whether political candidates participated in public forums conducted by the groups, but which issues were discussed, along with copies of any literature distributed at the forum and material published on websites. (The IRS has been less forthcoming with its own materials related to this investigation.) If the organizations collected dues, the IRS demanded to know how much they were. It demanded everything down to the résumés of employees. The inquiry was not limited to members of the organization, its executives, or its directors, but included even their family members: The IRS demanded to know — again, under penalty of perjury — whether any of their family members might be thinking about running for office. Its demand for the names of all donors — and all recipients of grants — is in violation of IRS policy. . . more

--------

but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.

That wasn't the job of the people at IRS involved in this, so yes, it was worng. Or do you want random government officials "volunteering" to keep the voters in line? You know, just until after the election is over? Or, hey, if it works, why stop? (You won't complain if the shoe is on the other foot, will you?)

If you still just can't quite bring yourself to identify this as a big problem, I'm tempted to suggest some supplementary reading material.

Re:If your group is

[Obfuscant]

Mike, you can engage in political activity and still be a 501c3 or 4, but it can't be your primary activity.

If only those two were the only ways of being tax exempt. A political organization can be tax exempt if its primary activity is a tax exempt activity. Here:

The exempt function of a political organization is influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to a federal, state, or local public office or office in a political organization. The election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors is also part of the exempt function of a political organization. Activities that directly or indirectly relate to or support an exempt function are exempt function activities.

I'd say the Tea Party meets that requirement.

Re: If your group is

[Anonymous Coward]

And the tea party has people who wanted to take over a courthouse in Tennessee(or was it Georgia?) shoot immigrants in Arizona, and other fun activity.

But I suppose you've whitewashed it in your attempts to claim to be on a pedestal. Of course, I also recall the claims that they'd be attacked and condemned as a sign of their virtue, which makes the Tea Party attempts to attack OWS a significant sign of hypocrisy.

Re: If your group is

[Mashiki]

And the tea party has people who wanted to take over a courthouse in Tennessee(or was it Georgia?) shoot immigrants in Arizona, and other fun activity.

You mean the usual protests held at a courthouse? Oh right, never mind that it was allowed by the local officers of the court or anything. And shooting "illegal" immigrants trespassing on private property, when the property owners are getting shot at, because the federal government isn't enforcing the law as it is. Not only that but they're actively refusing to arrest or detain people entering illegally into Texas, Arizona and California.

Blind ignorance is always fun isn't it? Let me know how that works out for you.

Re:If your group is

[OhPlz]

You're condemning all the people at the rallies by referring to some forum posts as evidence?

If people made that kind of sweeping generalization using comments here, imagine what they'd be saying about the computing industry.

Re:If your group is

[sleigher]

Really? I wouldn't. They are supposed to be impartial and follow the law. Not your political affiliation.

Re:If your group is

[SuperKendall]

I'm tuned into most of the major Tea Party social networks and the message to overthrow the US Government via armed rebellion is very thinly veiled if it's veiled at all.

I've been to a number of rallies and there are no such examples. You are merely making this up. All the Tea Party wants, all is has ever wanted is simply fiscal restraint and less government intrusion in our lives. I'm pretty sure you have confused just how exactly there comes to be less government. The last thing the Tea Party people want is some kind of overthrow which just leave different bastards in equal control of you.

You also seem to be utterly confused at the difference between "wed like to keep our guns to protect ourselves from criminals" vs. "We want to keep guns in a futile and utterly stupid attempt to attack the government". The Tea Party fights not with arms but through existing political process - which has been true from the start - and why they have seen such support and success. The best way to attack a rampant process is to inject yourself within and turn it on itself.

Re:If your group is

[__aaltlg1547]

If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.

Not to mention that

political parties cannot be tax exempt organizations

. So using "party" in your group's name or any of its application documents in any sense that suggests politics ought to evoke particular scrutiny.

Re:If your group is

[__aaltlg1547]

The tea party also supports candidates which is a taxable activity. If you do that, your group is not tax exempt.

Re:If your group is

[__aaltlg1547]

Unions are not tax-exempt.

Re:If your group is

[tmosley]

Amazing. So equal protection under the law no longer applies?

I guess America is really hard up for toilet paper these days. They have to use the Constitution now.

Re:If your group is

[cold fjord]

I see. So you want government large enough to know what every organization (and presumably every private citizen) in the country is spending their money on? Interesting. Probably not a good idea though.

That's right. It isn't a good idea. And that isn't what I suggested. I'm not sure how you came up with that silly nonsense. On the other hand, it effectively describes what the IRS was subjecting those organizations to. And it somewhat foreshadows the coming implementation of Obamacare, of which the IRS is the key enforcer.

Targeting organizations that are explicitly linked with anti-tax groups such as the Tea Party is common sense. It's like questioning a guy with an empty gas can that was walking away from a burning building.

There is a little problem with your understanding. Burning down a building - arson - is illegal. Advocating that congress change the tax laws and control spending, which is what the Tea Party does, is completely legal. Your "common sense" idea of targeting the Tea Party for the abuses perpetrated by IRS employees is ridiculous. Even the IRS says it was over the line, wrong. What you call "common sense" is in fact stupid and abusive.

Here is a question for you - is it OK to do the same thing to the causes you support? You do realize that the government will change hands eventually, right?

Re:If your group is

[dcollins]

"After all, they've actually tried to blow up bridges(Ohio)..."

You mean that totally made-up thing where an FBI plant persuaded people to do this ridiculous thing, gave them fake material, directed them where to put it, and then arrested them? Like they do routinely to convince people their doing anti-terror stuff? Looks like you fell for it.

Re:If your group is

[kenh]

There do appear to be some abuses of power here, but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.

The IRS requesting donor lists was illegal, yet they did it and the mainstream media ignored the complaints because...because...why?

Lerner said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. . . . she told The AP that no high level IRS officials knew about the practice..

Really? This is something that a low-level employee can do on their own, without any of their superiors being aware of it? Then again, it was low-level employees that decided to initiate a gun-running operation into Mexico and low-level employees that denied the Consulate in Benghazi additional security in the face ot increased threats, so why not? The press has accepted this pitiful excuse before, why not this time?

Re:If your group is

[Mashiki]

You mean that totally made-up thing where an FBI plant

If you mean they were actually planning it, and one of them turned informant well then yes. Perhaps you should be getting your information from someplace else instead of infowars.

Re:If your group is

[Mashiki]

GIYF.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/fbi/fbi-informant-infiltrated-occupy-movement-758348
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=33490

I'm sure team democrat still supports them, maybe.

Re: If your group is

[Score Whore]

There's zero evidence that either of those people have anything to do with any Tea Party organizations or even the Tea Party movement in general. Hell, the murders of Raul and Brisenia Flores happened in early 2009 before the various Tea Party organizations really got rolling.

Re:If your group is

[rtb61]

Profit based dammit. I expect a government department like the IRS to focus it's efforts directly where it will generate the greatest revenue. Now that's strict conservative thinking. I am not one, at least not in the current wildly distorted political sense (which more accurately is an exploiter) but I do know conservatives and the extents to which they will go to avoid paying taxes both legal and illegal is mind boggling and point of fact exactly zero of them do not follow that pattern. Typically small business people, they will also cheat on copyright and patents.

So IRS focusing in on conservatives when the conservatives are cutting the budget of the IRS and demanding they do more with the money they are provided ie generate more fucking revenue, it is only sensible and logical they pursue tea baggers as suspects number 1 when it comes to cheating on taxes.

Of course it is hardly surprising those tax cheats started whining when they created the conditions, in fact demanded them, that brought the focus back on their own activities. Oh my greed driven stupidity, it's just so comical.

Re:If your group is

[slick7]

If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.

This is clearly a case of abuse of authority by a government agency intervening in the political process for the benefit of the current administration. You've got a pretty big evidentiary burden if you want to try to justify that.

The sad truth is the IRS is a private company that doesn't give a rats ass about you, unless you don't pay your taxes.

Re:If your group is

[Mashiki]

Here let me add something else: Dear partisan hack mods, there is no "-1 I disagree" do the world a favor and grow the hell up, and when you realize that your "winning team" is just a bunch of anarchists and terrorists who have actually committed terrorist acts.

Re:If your group is

[gl4ss]

If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.

That tax revolt was against the previous regime (the British Empire), not the current government (United States of America). The Tea Party advocates for legislative reform of the tax code and containing spending, not revolts against the government. This is clearly a case of abuse of authority by a government agency intervening in the political process for the benefit of the current administration. You've got a pretty big evidentiary burden if you want to try to justify that.

if they nationwide use "being a patriot" as a reason for being tax exempt, I think they should start churches instead if they don't want the irs to fuck them up.

Re:If your group is

[haruchai]

"These days"? How old are you?

Re:If your group is

[stenvar]

The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it. It means that the IRS needs to do a better job of enforcing the code.

It should. But it should not start doing so by selectively picking on political opponents of the current administration and ignoring supporters of the administration.

Re:If your group is

[Attila Dimedici]

No that is not strict conservative thinking. Strict conservative thinking expects a government department like the IRS to follow the law and apply it equally to all individuals and groups, not matter what their political leaning.

Re:If your group is

[stenvar]

Oh, please. The term "party" in "tea party" refers to the Boston Tea Party, not a political party. In addition, becoming a political party is a complicated process, not something you do by putting a word in your name.

Re:If your group is

[Attila Dimedici]

Really, you mean that all of those PACs that support candidates are taxable? That people can't legitimately take a tax deduction for contributing to a political campaign? Or to a Political Action Committee?

Re:If your group is

[jedidiah]

> The IRS requesting donor lists was illegal, yet they did it and the mainstream media ignored the complaints because...because...why?

An anti-government group complaining about the government and conspiracies really isn't news. It's hard to take some claims seriously based on who is making them. Unfortunately if you sound like a nutbag you will tend to be treated like one.

That's one "bias" that's pretty hard to get away from.

The better question is where were the right-leaning journalists. Where was Fox News and the Journal?

Re:If your group is

[flyneye]

Uhm, yeah, Bin Laden was just brilliant, he's behind losing subsidized phones and torrent site takedowns too. Just playing into his hands aren't we?

Re:If your group is

[Livius]

The Tea Party has its extremists.

Making it exactly the same as every other movement ever.

Re:If your group is

[dkleinsc]

After all, they've actually tried to blow up bridges(Ohio)

No, they didn't.

2 of the 4 anarchists who were caught in the bridge plot showed up at Cleveland's OWS protest. They found basically a bunch of left-wingers sitting around holding signs, chatting, and getting along well with local police, and were disappointed because they had shown up hoping to fight cops. They got no support for their ideas at Cleveland OWS. As soon as the anarchists were discovered, Cleveland's OWS released a statement condemning the attack, which is hardly surprising as non-violence was a founding principle of the OWS movement. These were 2 guys (the other 2 bombers didn't have anything to do with OWS) out of 150 people or so involved in the protest, with no evidence that they received any support whatsoever from the protest organization or any of the prominent members of the group. The only real questions are (1) whether they decided to blow up the bridge before or after attending OWS, current evidence pointing to "before", and (2) whether these guys were entrapped in any way by the FBI informant who was supplying the bogus explosives and the expertise in using them.

This story got quickly turned into "OWS tries blows up a bridge" by people who opposed OWS, but it is in all respects a lie.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar story in Oklahoma, but this is a local story for me and I've met some of the players in this story - the guy who was the closest thing Occupy Cleveland had to a leader was head of a local chapter of a national Quaker organization, and if there's one thing Quakers are known for it's an absolute commitment to opposing violence.

Re:If your group is

[ganjadude]

just because you follow the social networks does not mean you have any idea what is going on. try going to a tea party rally or meeting, you will see its not the nutbags you see posting who show up there but people who actually try and have a plan. Everyone knows that the forums bring out the trolls, hell look around slashdot and you will see ACs posting all kinds of stupid crap

Re:If your group is

[khallow]

However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.

And your basis for that claim is?

The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it.

Why not? Inequal treatment by law enforcement is a classic gateway to tyranny, institutional discrimination, and corruption.

Re:If your group is

[NeutronCowboy]

That tax revolt was against the previous regime (the British Empire), not the current government (United States of America).

Fairly irrelevant bit of historical trivia. Not to mention it completely ignores the armed revolt that followed.

The Tea Party advocates for legislative reform of the tax code and containing spending, not revolts against the government.

The hell "it" does. Number one, there is no such thing as "The Tea Party". There are only Tea Partiers who vote in block for Republicans or the occasional Libertarian. Number 2, I very rarely see suggestions for legislative reform of the tax code that are possible without a new constitutional convention. As quite a few people will object to that, it does constitute at least an attempt to completely redo the government. And Number 3, based on the amount of overlap that exists between people arguing that background checks are the last step before concentration camps and Tea Partiers, I'd say we're about one charismatic leader away from a revolt against the government.

This is clearly a case of abuse of authority by a government agency intervening in the political process for the benefit of the current administration.

Correction: it's for the benefit of the current government. Tea Party organizations will have to radically change government to achieve their goals. The current administration is merely collateral in that fight. Unless, of course, you want to argue that the current fight will stop as soon as Republicans get into the White House, in which case the IRS minions were actually right: these groups are fully political, with no public service fig leaf to save them.

You've got a pretty big evidentiary burden if you want to try to justify that.

Nice Strawman to close out your post.

By the way, to everyone reaching for the troll mod: I'm fully aware that the only thing that gets you voted into oblivion faster than anything less than fanatical veneration of guns is any insinuation that Tea Partiers are a bunch of illogical and ignorant xenophobes. So bring it.

Re:If your group is

[jythie]

That and the significant piece of the early rhetoric overlapped them with sovereign citizens and other groups that have been spouting constitutional-flavored reasons for why they can skip their taxes.

Re:If your group is

[ShanghaiBill]

Unions are not tax-exempt.

Yes they are. Most labor unions are 501(c)5 organizations. They are required to report and pay tax on any political contributions, but otherwise do not pay income tax.

Re:If your group is

[budgenator]

The IRS isn't supposed to care, their mission is to collect each taxpayer's fair share as determined by congress. Unfortunately the tax code has become more an instrument of social engineering than government financing. This has set an example that it's OK for the IRS to have secondary agendas, it's nor surprising that the low level minions would follow suit.

Re:If your group is

[phantomfive]

The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign

FYI the LDS church didn't use tax exempt resources to campaign, they were careful to avoid that exactly for the reason you described.

Occasionally if you pay attention, around election times the IRS does threaten to revoke (or threaten to revoke) the tax exempt status of some churches. The key thing they look for is the support or opposition of a particular candidate.

Re:If your group is

[davydagger]

What you describe as an exact abuse of power that is not supposed to happen in a free democratic society. Protesting a law should not make you a suspect.

What most of you democrats and your short sighted corporate sponsered ham fisted rage seem to miss is the very broad political implications of this, all so you can more or less use the government to crack down on political opposition.

Re:If your group is

[phantomfive]

'm tuned into most of the major Tea Party social networks and the message to overthrow the US Government via armed rebellion is very thinly veiled if it's veiled at all.

It doesn't matter. You don't use the IRS to investigate people just because they are members of the Communist Party, you don't do it if they are members of the Tea Party.

Essentially what you are doing is using government power to harass a particular group without judicial oversight. That's why it's not cool.

Re:If your group is

[Attila Dimedici]

Watch the pseudo loyal conservative tax cheats moan and cry then.

You mean like Timothy Geithner? And Kathleen Sebelius? And Tom Daschle?
I have never heard conservative voices say that terrorism investigations should apply the law differently to different people. Conservatives have said that if 9 out of 10 of the people who have committed a particular crime fall into a certain profile, than perhaps government officials looking for people who are preparing to commit that crime should pay closer attention to other people who fit that profile rather than spending time harassing people whose profile does not match that of anyone who has ever committed the crime. So, if the IRS was claiming that they had caught large numbers of organizations using the words "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their name falsely claiming to be tax exempt, than a closer examination of such groups would be warranted. However, since the IRS makes no such claim, your point does not apply.

Re:If your group is

[buybuydandavis]

Maybe IT Pimp orgs should call themselves unions to avoid corporate taxes.

Re: If your group is

[Pharmboy]

What a load of crap. Most teachers salaries are paid for with local and state funds, not federal income tax. And if you don't have a home, it is highly unlikely you have any deductions that can be itemized. This likely means you are part of the 45% or so that don't even pay any effective income tax, so you would hardly be starving the federal govt. Hate to rant, but this is just trolling and I don't have mod points.

Re:If your group is

[ultranova]

The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it.

Actually, yes it does mean exactly that. Either apply the law to everyone or no one. Why on earth should a notorious criminal organization or a weird cult be more equal than a secular bunch of morons?

Re:If your group is

[gadget junkie]

If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.

except, the one that pays special interest should be fired on the spot and forbidden to join any public service any more. The government should be "for the people", not "for the bureaucracy". I live in such a country and it is pure hell.

Re:If your group is

[Darinbob]

I suspect the people who get the "please let our organization avoid paying taxes" applications do scrutinize anything political much more thoroughly than those from charitable organizations. And let's face it, the tea party style clubs were forming much faster than other political groups, so it only takes a tiny amount of bias to have many more of those held up for additional scrutiny.

Now what is the goal here? The way people are getting coronaries I think some of them honestly feel they should be allowed to nullify the elections.

Re:If your group is

[Darinbob]

Except that this isn't true under current laws.

Re:If your group is

[rtb61]

Ohh look let's see how stupid the IRS can be, let's announce to all and sundry the profile that matches tax cheats and then let's see how quickly those tax cheats alter their profile. Gee's you conservative tax cheats are so funny, your childlike behaviour is really amazing but then I guess that's where it's mine, mine, mine, gimme more, more, more comes from.

Another profile of tax cheats is being a poseur, so watching sports car purchases, power boat purchases, especially purchases by companies in that all income shifting game. Then of course are those internet connections to offshore banks in tax havens, when you're monitoring all ip connections, scoping out all those money laundering banks and their customers becomes easier, don't need the actual data, just the red flag for an audit. Greedy people can't help but keep a regular eye on their money. Perhaps you can come up with some more tax cheat profile points ;D.

Re: If your group is

[PopeRatzo]

do we really want an all powerful government

If the government was really "all powerful" then it wouldn't be so subject to the whims of special interests.

The power of government lies entirely in the hands of the people who can afford to fund campaigns, positive or negative.

If government was "all powerful" would we really have lobbyists writing legislation? Bankers writing bank regulations, oil companies writing energy regs, Wall Street regulating itself?

No, what we currently have is an extremely weak government, with power diffused to anyone who can afford it.

Re:If your group is

[PopeRatzo]

I'd say the Tea Party meets that requirement.

Well, that would depend on which "Tea Party" we're talking about.

In 2011, we had "Tea Parties" fighting with one another, accusing each other of just being for-profit entities who basically do no political work at all, running "town hall" meetings with right wing celebrities and charging admission and taking the money home. If you look up all the organizations that have "tea party" or "patriot" or "9/12" in their names, you're going to find a whole bunch who are clearly just for-profit business, trying to separate rubes from their money.

Not to say everyone who calls himself a member of the "tea party" is a rube, but there are enough to make it profitable.

Just look through a few pages of google results for "tea party" and see what I mean. Hell, there's even a "tea party" group in Michigan that's run by Democrats, trying to influence Republican primaries by running judas goats.

There's so much profiteering, and so many different groups, that the words "tea party" and "patriot" no longer have a special meaning.

I run a little micro-non-profit and the application procedure and prove-up was a huge hassle. They ask for all kinds of documentation and duplication and information that you would think has nothing to do with anything. And this is for an organization that has absolutely no political activity whatsoever.

Let's be clear about what happened here. There was no "harassment". The worst thing that could have happened to one of these groups is that they had to pay their taxes. Their freedom of speech was not abridged. At worst they were not subsidized by the other taxpayers. I wouldn't be surprised if words like "occupy" weren't also on that list. But this is in the hands of the hysterical now, so there will be a lot more heat than light. the information is lost. It's all tribal now.

Re: If your group is

[khallow]

No, what we currently have is an extremely weak government, with power diffused to anyone who can afford it.

Wait, what led you to that conclusion? It's not much of a stretch to say that a government which sells itself to the highest bidder is weaker than a government which just controls everything, but that's not the same as a weak government. After all, collectively, it retains all political power.

Do we say that a telephone monopoly is weak just because they sell their services?

Re:If your group is

[khallow]

Let's be clear about what happened here. There was no "harassment".

And counter to your assertion, we have the word of IRS agents who say there was such "harassment".

Re: If your group is

[khallow]

Fraudulently claiming tax exempt status is also illegal.

Crimes generally are illegal.

The requests for paperwork/brochures from meetings could actually prove or disprove their reported activities for tax exemption. The IRS asked for names and documents in exchange for not paying thousands of dollars in taxes. Not a bad trade.

I see you don't get it. I probably could prove that you didn't commit a variety of crimes through torture. A few hours of time in the chamber surely is worth more than a few years in a hardcore prison, right?

Illegal means to obtain information are being used here. It doesn't matter if the cost of providing the information is relatively low, it is an illegal act which is being performed here.

Re: If your group is

[khallow]

liberals also (if not more so) want the law followed an applied equally (e.g. women's rights).

Then why is there "women's rights" and not "men's rights"? It's because they don't want equally applied law, but rather unfairly applied law to address perceived historical injustices.

Re:If your group is

[Attila Dimedici]

I have a question, what does any of what you just posted have to do with the IRS requesting a list of donors to the organization, the names of spouses and family members of those filling out the application and whether any of their family members might be thinking about running for political office (and multiple other intrusive, irrelevant questions) from organizations which applied for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status? In particular since it only did so of organizations which contained the words "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their name. Oh yeah, and it did this after Obama "joked" about sicking the IRS on political opponents.

Re:If your group is

[Zenin]

I've been to a few rallies. The nutters at the rallies make the online folks look quite reasonable by comparison.

The fact is the Tea Party is nothing more then a front group for a few (very few) billionaires. It was never grass roots, it was never a "movement". It's nothing but a few rich bastards whipping nutters into a frenzy, rattling the screws even looser in the process.

Re:If your group is

[PopeRatzo]

And counter to your assertion, we have the word of IRS agents who say there was such "harassment".

I couldn't find the word "harassment" in the statement I saw. You have a link to such a statement?

Re: If your group is

[PopeRatzo]

I didn't say the government "sells" its services. I said power belongs to a certain very wealthy group of people. None of whom belong to government.

Re: If your group is

[khallow]

I didn't say the government "sells" its services.

I know, but all the examples you gave were of government selling its services. None of those private entities can pass legislation by themselves. They have to do so through a government which is collecting from each such action.

Re:If your group is

[khallow]

I couldn't find the word "harassment" in the statement I saw.

That is a completely irrelevant observation. Words have meanings. If the meaning applies, then the word can be used even if it hasn't been used before with respect to a particular thing.

Re: If your group is

[khallow]

Men's rights have been implied for centuries, idiot.

So you don't have any serious rebuttal to my observation? That's so unexpected.

Re: If your group is

[khallow]

Men's rights have been implied for centuries, idiot.

I think I'll have to say more so that you get it. From my previous post, I wrote:

but rather unfairly applied law to address perceived historical injustices

You mention such a "perceived historical injustice". All I can say to that is that your claim is profoundly stupid. Nobody kicking around now was alive centuries ago. The people responsible for the "centuries of men's rights" at the exclusion of women's rights, have been dead for a long time.

And while "women's rights" are supposedly about the rights of women, they're also about protecting the privileges of women, such as a heavy legal advantage in child custody and alimony cases (the legal principle of "the calf follows the heifer") or the social games of dating, such as the obligation on men to provide proof of reproductive fitness via expensive gifts and other demonstrations of status.

Re:If your group is

[PopeRatzo]

That is a completely irrelevant observation. Words have meanings.

But you just said that the IRS official "admitted to harassment". Words have meanings.

Oh, I see what you're doing. I remember you.

Re:If your group is

[khallow]

But you just said that the IRS official "admitted to harassment".

I didn't say that the IRS official called it "harassment". When the IRS forces certain groups to pass through a bunch of bureaucratic hurdles and demands ridiculous information from them (what the IRS official admitted to), what do you call that sort of harassing activity? "Harassment" springs to mind.

Re:If your group is

[gmhowell]

I call it "profiling".

Quis custodiet ipsos custodet?

Rorschach.

Re:If your group is

[Tancred]

I don't think anyone here is unaware of the origin of the name. Obviously there are many groups and individuals that use some form of the tea party name, but some certainly do act as if they were a political party, whether or not they've made it official. Tea party candidates have been listed as such on ballots for state and federal offices and there's even a "tea party" response to the SotU address in addition to the Republican response, though I forget which group has been scoring the airtime.

Re:If your group is

[dcollins]

They were not planning any such thing. Their original raw plans were to set off some smoke and take down some signs, until the FBI plant got involved. This is the Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-5-men-arrested-wanted-blow-ohio-bridge-143112191.html):

"Baxter, Wright and Hayne considered different plots over time, including distracting law enforcement with smoke grenades while trying to bring down financial institution signs in downtown Cleveland."

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/fbi-occupy-wall-street-occupy-cleveland_n_2435224.html):

"Shaquille Azir, ex-con, bank robber, forger, passer of bad checks, and FBI informant, first visited Occupy Cleveland the night the activists were evicted from their camp. The young men were homeless, looking for a cause and a paycheck. At best they were failed gutter punks. It took months of convincing by Azir to get the plot in motion. After the camp folded, Azir gave the penniless Occupy activists construction jobs, and plied them with beer while they worked. He sent them home, according to a Rolling Stone magazine account, with more beer, weed and prescription drugs. At first, the activists rebuffed Azir's arms-dealer friend, who was an FBI agent. Azir continued to press them."

In-depth article at Rolling Stone on this and other recent FBI procedures -- http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515

Re:If your group is

[stenvar]

Tea party candidates have been listed as such on ballots for state and federal offices

Really? Like where?

I think you're confusing that with the "Boston Tea Party", which was a short-lived libertarian party that did have candidates but is different from the "tea party movement".

Re:If your group is

[Tancred]

I didn't remember where, but here's the first clear reference I found when searching for tea party candidates on ballots. It mentions such candidates in FL, NV, NJ and NY in 2010.

I didn't know about the BTP, but from its goals and name, it seems clear they were part of the tea party movement. Do you disagree?

Re:If your group is

[MutualFun]

...

That tax revolt was against the previous regime (the British Empire), not the current government (United States of America). The Tea Party advocates for legislative reform of the tax code and containing spending, not revolts against the government. This is clearly a case of abuse of authority by a government agency intervening in the political process for the benefit of the current administration. You've got a pretty big evidentiary burden if you want to try to justify that.

Oh yeah, and that is why we saw so many of those innocent patriots carrying their AR-15s at Tea Party rallies. It was all in good fun, right?

Re:If your group is

[MutualFun]

...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodet?

Oh man, I loved The Watchmen! Greatest comic series ever. Too bad about the film though. Left too much out, but did a decent job of recreating some of the iconic artwork in some camera shots.

Re:If your group is

[stenvar]

when searching for tea party candidates

Those are candidates friendly to goals of the Tea Party organizations, not official candidates of a "tea party". We don't strip tax exempt status from progressive organizations or environmental organizations because there are "progressive candidates" or "environmental candidates".

I didn't know about the BTP, but from its goals and name, it seems clear they were part of the tea party movement. Do you disagree?

The Boston Tea Party party predates the Tea Party protests by three years, and it was a spin-out from the Libertarian party.

Re:If your group is

[Tancred]

Those are candidates friendly to goals of the Tea Party organizations, not official candidates of a "tea party".

Yes, they were friendly, and listed themselves as tea party candidates on the ballots. You asked where when I mentioned it and I got you the answer.

We don't strip tax exempt status from progressive organizations or environmental organizations because there are "progressive candidates" or "environmental candidates".

Of course not. That would be silly.

The Boston Tea Party party predates the Tea Party protests by three years, and it was a spin-out from the Libertarian party.

What was your point? Just that they were the first? If so, I don't have any particular reason to doubt that.

Re:If your group is

[stenvar]

No, sorry, you haven't "got me the answer". The question is not whether candidates associate with an organization, it's whether the organization campaigns on behalf of the candidates.

As for the BTP, as I was saying it's a branch of the Libertarian party. What does that have to do with the Tea Party movement???

Re:If your group is

[Obfuscant]

Hell, there's even a "tea party" group in Michigan that's run by Democrats, trying to influence Republican primaries by running judas goats.

This is one of the worst anti-conservative arguments I've seen here on /., and I've seen some really bad ones. You're branding conservatives groups as filled with rubes and proving it by talking about a Democrat scam?

There was no "harassment". The worst thing that could have happened to one of these groups is that they had to pay their taxes.

Let's really be honest here, ok? Not this "look how bad Tea Party people are because Democrats are running a scam...". If you are tax exempt, then the IRS investigating you is harassment, and being threatened with years of back taxes and penalties by an out-of-line IRS agent is more than just "being expected to pay your taxes.".

Their freedom of speech was not abridged.

You know this how? You don't think having to think twice or three times about expressing your opinion because an IRS agent is breathing down your neck threatening to remove your tax exempt status illegally, which could shut your entire organization down when you can't pay the penalties he'll assign, is a limitation on free speech? Be real.

Why are you defending the political use of the IRS? Oh, it's because it is being used against a group you don't like. I got it. Understand. Double standard.

Re:If your group is

[Tancred]

No, sorry, you haven't "got me the answer". The question is not whether candidates associate with an organization, it's whether the organization campaigns on behalf of the candidates.

You asked "Really?" and "Like where?" and my answers were "yes" and "at a minimum, FL, NV, NJ and NY". I don't have all the answers to the broader question you're now raising.

As for the BTP, as I was saying it's a branch of the Libertarian party. What does that have to do with the Tea Party movement???

As I already wrote, the goals and the name puts them at least superficially in the tea party movement. Maybe there's something deeper than that I missed in my 2 minutes on Wikipedia that sets them apart. It sounds like you think the former party affiliation of many (most?) of the BTP means they're not part of the tea party movement. Is that the point you're trying to make?

Re:If your group is

[Quila]

I understand the general idea of those workers. If there seem to be a lot of groups with politically-oriented names popping up, it might be a good idea to pay extra attention to make sure some scam isn't going on. The problem is they restricted it to conservative groups. The first real management who discovered this put a stop to it, and broadened the category to both left and right politically-oriented groups.

Workers get stupid, management puts a stop to it and orders an IG investigation. Things are working like they're supposed to. I don't see a real problem here deserving of ongoing investigations. The only real issue is that the lower management didn't tell the upper management what was going on, so upper management didn't tell the truth to Congress.

How APK avoids paying taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

irs.gov 127.0.0.0

Re:How APK avoids paying taxes

[Stenchwarrior]

Oh. My. God. I just laughed so hard I farted. It does my heart good to know that even after many years here on /. that douche bag is still the butt of jokes.

Re:How APK avoids paying taxes

[Tooke]

Care to explain? I couldn't find any info on who/what APK is.

Re:How APK avoids paying taxes

[Crudely_Indecent]

Setting irs.gov 127.0.0.0 in hosts file will result in your own inability to reach the irs.gov website - it won't prevent them from reaching you.

Accountability

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there no accountability for government workers?

Someone broke the law, even criminally so I might add. People should get fired over this, and criminal charges filed. At the very least this is a serious breach of privacy and trust.

Re:Accountability

[ScentCone]

Why is there no accountability for government workers?

Public employee unions.

Re:Accountability

[darkmeridian]

You didn't read the article. By definition, the IRS couldn't have gone after their political rivals because political groups are not allowed to have non-profit status. That's the entire cause of this kerfuffle. The law forbids non-profits from having a political goal. The IRS saw "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in the names and just assumed those groups were political in nature. That's stupid and lazy, but not necessarily evil or criminal. BUT if you think that "Tea Party" and "Patriot" groups are inherently political, and therefore discriminated against by the IRS on that basis, then you're actually agreeing that the IRS did the right thing by targeting them as political groups!

Re:Accountability

[kenh]

The IRS saw "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in the names and just assumed those groups were political in nature.

No, a low-level IRS employee in Cincinnati, OH jumped to that conclusion, in violation of IRS policy and possibly against the law, but no worries - the inquiries weren't politically motivated (although they were based on the political terms in the groups names?) and though highly improper and egregious enough to warrant a formal apology from the IRS (I can not ever EVER remember the IRS apologizing to any, ever, for anything!), have no worries for the low-level IRS worker that started this, there will be no disciplinary measures taken.

Yep, I bet that low-level worker learned their lesson - do this again, and nothing will happen to you...

Re:Accountability

[dbraden]

You didn't read the article. By definition, the IRS couldn't have gone after their political rivals because political groups are not allowed to have non-profit status. That's the entire cause of this kerfuffle. The law forbids non-profits from having a political goal.

Except, that's simply not correct. A political organization is even a specifically mentioned type of non-profit on the IRS's web site (usually referred to as a "527" organization): http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Political-Organizations.

The activities that qualify for the exemption are:

The exempt function of a political organization is influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to a federal, state, or local public office or office in a political organization. The election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors is also part of the exempt function of a political organization. Activities that directly or indirectly relate to or support an exempt function are exempt function activities.

Re:Accountability

[Totenglocke]

Because it's government employees in charge of punishing / filing charges against other government employees. It's the same reason why police officers who commit crimes rarely are punished (they normally just get a two week unpaid vacation as the worst punishment) - because it's the police (Internal Affairs) in charge of investigating and punishing the police. It's also the same reason why the Attorney General's office decided not to charge the Attorney General with contempt of Congress over his refusal to provide documents on Fast and Furious.

We need a civilian operated organization in charge of investigating criminal behavior by the government, because clearly letting the government police themselves doesn't work.

Re:Accountability

[ArcherB]

Sorry, but when the IRS starts asking for the names and political affiliations of family members and a list of donors, it starts to get a bit creepy.

Also the "TEA Party" is not really a party at all, at least not on the national level. Mitt Romney was the nominee for the Republican Party. Barack Obama was the nominee for the Democrat Party. Who was the nominee for the TEA Party? No one! Why, because it's not really a party. See, TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. The rallies were called TEA Parties because it sounded cute and exemplified a tax revolt. The name stuck. But it's not an official political party and yes, they are legally tax exempt.

You seriously believe this was an innocent mistake? Tell me again why they were asking for the names and political affiliations of family members?

Re:Accountability

[Theranthrope]

The IRS saw "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in the names and just assumed those groups were political in nature.

"I'm shocked! Shocked! To find that gambling is going on in this casino!"

Re:Accountability

[Attila Dimedici]

You might want to look into 527 organizations. They are explicitly political, non-profit organizations. The claim is made that the organizations targeted were 501(c)4 organizations, which the article says may participate in political activities as long as it is not their primary activity. One such organization is Moveon.org (you know the organization that was formed to attack those who called for Bill Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath). I hardly see how "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in the name necessarily makes an organization more political than Moveon.org. In addition, the things which the IRS asked for were above and beyond that which would have told them whether the organization was primarily involved in political activity or if other social welfare activities took up more of its time and resources.

Re:Accountability

[ganjadude]

"low level employee" just like with everything else the admin gets caught with. gotta have a "low level employee" as a scapegoat. I mean why dont we ever get these "low level employees" names?

Re:Accountability

[guspasho]

OH HEY LOOK! They backtracked and apologized! What do you want, a pound of flesh?

Re:Accountability

[Jane Q. Public]

"Someone broke the law, even criminally so I might add. People should get fired over this, and criminal charges filed. At the very least this is a serious breach of privacy and trust."

Given the scale of this abuse, there is no way in hell it was just a misstep by a few employees. It MUST have been a policy decision by somebody, somewhere.

Let's not blame the grunt workers. Look higher up and blame the parties actually responsible. This kind of abuse of government power is inexcusable, no matter who is doing it. Leave partisan politics out of it. It's just plain very, very bad for America.

The real question is...

[Thangodin]

Was there reason to suspect improper practices? We've been having a lot of problems in Canada with the Conservative Party (currently the party in power.) Is this a follow up on previous known practices?

Re:The real question is...

[Aighearach]

Yes, it was in response to a big increase over the past few years of political groups incorrectly registering as Social Service organizations to get tax-exempt status without being regulated by the elections rules. And the Tea Party movement was a new political movement, it seems totally natural to me to give a close examination when a political movement is registering as social service organizations instead of political action committees.

Re:The real question is...

[j-beda]

Yeah, trolling for wrong doing based on zero evidence is perfectly acceptable.

4th Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It isn't that easy. Statistically valid decisions on who to audit would not necessarily have 4th amendment implications. If you notice that left handers are more likely to be tax cheats, it would not be inappropriate to target left handers for higher rates of close scrutiny, for example. The difficulty may be in deciding when such scrutiny becomes abusive or is based on political motivations.

Way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

So the government just proved most of the Tea Party's points. Way to go.

Well, of course not.

[techno-vampire]

...it was stated that no disciplinary action had been taken by those who engaged in this activity.

What else would you expect? Did you really think that the people who did this were going to discipline themselves? What I would have expected was that disciplinary action had been taken against the people responsible. And, I'll add, I'm sure that whoever did this would have ended up in hot water if they'd targeted groups that supported President Obama.

Re:Well, of course not.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

she told The AP that no high level IRS officials knew about the practice

The high level IRS officials should know what practices are going on under their supervision and watch . . .

That's their job as managers and executives . . . isn't it . . . ?

Re:Well, of course not.

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

When shit hits the fan you get to pick one; incompetent or malicious.

Re:Well, of course not.

[techno-vampire]

Yes. Of course. However, they can't be everyplace, looking over everybody's shoulder all of the time. They can only do so much. And, of course, the low level agents who (it's claimed) were responsible probably knew better than to let their bosses know about it. Not just (or mostly) to give them plausible deniability but because they understood that their boss can't forbid something they don't know is happening.

Re:Well, of course not.

[cold fjord]

...it was stated that no disciplinary action had been taken by those who engaged in this activity.

What else would you expect? Did you really think that the people who did this were going to discipline themselves?

Reading at the second link, it shows this:

Karen Tumulty
@ktumulty

IRS on conf call saying no disciplinary action against employees who targeted tea party groups for extra scrutiny.

I think you managed to find something mistyped.

And, I'll add, I'm sure that whoever did this would have ended up in hot water if they'd targeted groups that supported President Obama.

I quite agree with you on that point.

Re:Well, of course not.

[techno-vampire]

I think you managed to find something mistyped.

I do too. In fact, that was the point I was trying to make, indirectly. (Instead of just saying that there's a typo, I decided to make the readers take another look and figure it out on their own.)

Re:Well, of course not.

[cold fjord]

Sorry, my mistake.

Re:Well, of course not.

[techno-vampire]

No problem. In fact, it's not really a mistake at all, because I'm sure there are people reading this that weren't able to make the connection on their own.

Re:Well, of course not.

[dwye]

Why can't I pick "both incompetent AND malicious"? Actually, given that this occurred during a Democratic administration, also toadying to those in power?

There have been cases in Republican administrations of the IRS investigating organizations supporting the opposition at a greater rate than chance; since the IRS doesn't have a massive turnover in personnel the reason is most probably to brown-nose those in power, rather than assume that the IRS was suddenly a hotbed of Republican partisanship.

So, now we have the suggestion that those members of the IRS responsible for this were incompetent, malicious toadies and boot-lickers.

And to quote Senator Howard Baker, during the Watergate Hearings, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" As long as it wasn't shortly after it occurred, he can be "shocked, shocked I say, to find that there is gambling going on in this establishment."

Re:Well, of course not.

[ArsonSmith]

The first thing that should be done when the shit hits the fan, unplug the fan...

Shutdown the IRS. Fire them all. Start over from scratch with many more restrictions, an open process and a flat and fair policy. it's the only way to be sure.

Re:Well, of course not.

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

The person choosing is the one making the excuse; you can either say that you don't run a tight ship (so you didn't know it was happening), or that you were involved.

Re:Well, of course not.

[kenh]

Three hundred organizations were targeted.

Three Hundred - that takes time, how does that go "under the radar"?

IRS Manager: "Susie, what have you been up to these last few days? You seem very busy and you've sent out a lot of oversize envelopes..."

Low-level IRS Worker: "Oh nothing, just working on a little personal business, nothing you need to concern yourself with boos."

IRS Manager: "Oh, OK, keep up the good work!"

Re:Well, of course not.

[Aonghus142000]

"In America we have two parties, the stupid party and the evil party. Every once and a while, they get together and do something stupid and evil. This is called bipartisanship."

Re:Well, of course not.

[BonThomme]

"Heckuva job, Susie!"

Re:Well, of course not.

[terrycarlino]

Yes, but the real questions that divides us is which one is the stupid party and whcih one the evil party.

Re:Very un-PC

[StarWreck]

Where did you get that targeting a religious group is acceptable from?

And to echo the tea partiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely they had no issue with the enhanced audits if they had nothing to hide.

Re:And to echo the tea partiers

[houghi]

Surely they had no issue with the enhanced audits if they had nothing to hide.

Not sure if funny or insightful.

Re:And to echo the tea partiers

[atriusofbricia]

Surely they had no issue with the enhanced audits if they had nothing to hide.

Not sure if funny or insightful.

Neither given the implication that Tea Party members would somehow be in favor of intrusive government action in other areas, which they are not in general.

Doubly so if the allusion was towards TSA 'enhanced' stuff, support of which would seem to be nigh incompatible with Tea Party philosophy.

Re:And to echo the tea partiers

[BonThomme]

"which they are not in general"

No, they've been very specific about those.

Re:Very un-PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Because conservatives LOVE any narrative in which they are the victims. Organizations filing for tax-exempt status that are engaged in political work SHOULD receive the kind of scrutiny they got.

It's hard to believe

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

It's hard to believe.

Not that the IRS would do this, that's a gimmie. Or that they'd lie to cover it up, throw some small-time employees under the bus and try to wash their hands of it, we expect that. What's hard to believe is that there will be any real changes past the initial scandal.

The righty groups are already so marginalized in public opinion that most people will look at this article and rather than actually have any issue with the actions of the IRS, they'll feel horrified that the Tea Party was right on something that was already discarded as conspiracy theory. Like a crazy uncle that will never shut up about the time he called it.

Case in point: If this happened to anyone else the outrage would be unquantifiable. But because the systemic harassment of political affiliations only targeted conservatives we will see a whole lot of rationalizing, and IRS apologists. That's the real story.

Re:It's hard to believe

[Lord Kano]

You're half right.

It's not because Tea Party groups are fringe elements. It's because the average American is only outraged when they are told to be by the mainstream media. The same media that gives Obama the glory-hole treatment every week isn't going to direct people to be upset about the unfair treatment of the opposition.

LK

Re:It's hard to believe

[JBMcB]

Most tea party members tend to lean libertarian, who are generally more socially liberal than Democrats.

Re:It's hard to believe

[ebno-10db]

the average American is only outraged when they are told to be by the mainstream media

I have more than a few qualms about the MSM and what they do and don't cover. However this one isn't getting a pass. That story is from the Associated Press, which is not exactly samizdat. It's also in McClatchy papers, which if anything are known for leaning left. http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washington/2013/05/republicans-call-for-an-inquiry-into-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups.html

Re:It's hard to believe

[hondo77]

Most tea party members tend to lean libertarian, who are generally more socially liberal than Democrats on planet Zontar.

FTFY.

Re:It's hard to believe

[Raenex]

Not that the IRS would do this, that's a gimmie.

That's a given. What you said, uncompressed, is "that's a give me".

Re:It's hard to believe

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

I think it could be used both ways. "This assertion that I'm making is so obvious that it should be given to me without question." But, yeah, your way seems more clear. Thanks.

Re:It's hard to believe

[Aighearach]

I agree there won't be any changes, because there is no "there" there. It is all a bunch of indignant puff. But the reality is that these are marginally, if at all, social service organizations. They should probably be registered as PACs, because that is what they act like. And some IRS agents who feel the same way and had discretion to select audit targets checked them out. In many cases they were approved even though they still don't look legit, because they went through the motions of claiming to be legit. And being new organizations, there is no way to disprove that. But I don't think actual experience with what these groups are doing now, after they got registered as social service, is going to lead people to think that they are more social service than political.

The red flag is that most of these groups only have one group registered; as a social service. If they were registering 2 branches, a political branch and also a social service branch, then it would stand a much higher chance of looking legit, and being in the spirit of the rules. But the primary mission of these groups is political. So leaving that out entirely, as if they're 0% political, is just silly.

And that they were on one side of politics is natural; it was only one side of politics that was creating a bunch of new organizations. On the left were existing groups like moveon.org growing, not a bunch of newbs. And moveon has two branches; political and social service.

Re:It's hard to believe

[Lord Kano]

We'll see the kind of treatment it gets on Meet The Press and Hardball.

LK

Re:It's hard to believe

[Lord Kano]

I'm not an advocate. I don't have any desire to trick you into listening. If I tell you that your house is on fire and you don't like that I used the cliche term "burning down", that's your shortcoming, not mine.

For the record, when I say mainstream media, I mean "ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, HuffPo, DailyKos, Jon Stewart, and pretty much any newspaper that has 'Times' in the name"

LK

Re:It's hard to believe

[kenh]

They threw no one under the bus.

Re:It's hard to believe

[Totenglocke]

Yes, but the majority of Americans don't get their news from anything but the big TV news stations. If they refuse to cover it, most Americans will never know about it.

Re:It's hard to believe

[DirePickle]

I didn't mean to suggest that you are or would want to trick people into listening. I just meant, very seriously, that when a cliche is co-opted by one side of a factious argument or other, it becomes impossible to have an actual conversation using those cliches. To one side they're a rallying cry, and to the other side the words just embody everything they don't like about the first side. No information passes, except "I belong to group X."

Re:It's hard to believe

[ArcherB]

the average American is only outraged when they are told to be by the mainstream media

I have more than a few qualms about the MSM and what they do and don't cover. However this one isn't getting a pass. That story is from the Associated Press, which is not exactly samizdat. It's also in McClatchy papers, which if anything are known for leaning left.

http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washington/2013/05/republicans-call-for-an-inquiry-into-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups.html

What's today? You will notice that damaging stories are always released on Friday when they want something forgotten. The press gets a pass because they can claim to cover it, but it will be forgotten by Monday and we'll be back to the American Idol judges getting fired.

Re:It's hard to believe

[sociocapitalist]

You're half right.

It's not because Tea Party groups are fringe elements. It's because the average American is only outraged when they are told to be by the mainstream media. The same media that gives Obama the glory-hole treatment every week isn't going to direct people to be upset about the unfair treatment of the opposition.

LK

Because Fox news, for example, supports Obama...?

Abuse of power by any political party is unacceptable. Of course the Republicans wouldn't know anything about playing dirty though, would they...

Re:It's hard to believe

[stenvar]

That's merely reporting. Show me widespread publications of opinion pieces and editorials showing outrage.

Re:It's hard to believe

[BonThomme]

do you even read the WSJ opinion page? They have a daily menu of outrage.

Re:It's hard to believe

[BonThomme]

except you tell us every single day that our house is on fire. and you keep saying our neighbor did it.

"glory hole every week" is your tell.

Re:It's hard to believe

[BonThomme]

Zontar delegation on line 1...

Re:It's hard to believe

[Hanzie]

Actually, Lord Kano,

What I find nearly impossible to believe is that this discussion is even going on.

It's refreshing to see two sides of an argument here.

"Just because you've joined the Tea Party doesn't mean you have to stop hating Republicans." -- Most Tea Partiers

"If the druggies could ever accept the gun nuts, and the gun nuts could accept the druggies, we libertarians would never lose an election again." Penn Jillette, my hero

"Being a libertarian means you lose every election." Super athiest-libertarian Penn, again.

Re:It's hard to believe

[stenvar]

I think it's hardly surprising if the editorial page of a conservative business newspaper is outraged at this; that doesn't constitute "widespread outrage".

Re:It's hard to believe

[meustrus]

Is there a mod for +1 Pedantic?

Re:It's hard to believe

[meustrus]

It's certainly true that the Libertarian ideology is in some part socially liberal, because it advocates that the government should get out of social issues. A pure Libertarian would say that government has no business outlawing gay sex or liquor sales on Sundays (abortion is slightly different because if you believe it's equivalent to murder, Libertarians usually still support outlawing murder). A pure Libertarian would also want to abolish welfare as well as every government service that works to reduce the impact of poverty. For that matter, a pure Libertarian would also want to shrink the military to 19th century levels and get the hell out of world politics. I think Ron Paul is the closest to pure Libertarian that I've ever seen, and he's actually too libertarian for most tea partiers.

As I understand it, the Tea Party is more of an ultraconservative response (by the anti-elite everyman Republicans, as opposed to the evil businessman Republicans) to the frankly corrupt and exploitative ideology of "neo-conservatism". Bush pays for a huge unnecessary war (Iraq) with catastrophic debt and expands the role of government in our daily lives (TSA et al) and as soon as the "mainstream media" ends its love affair with Karl Rove those Republicans are left scratching their heads thinking, "This is not what I thought I voted for..."

Re:It's hard to believe

[Lord Kano]

I'm not concealing anything. I am a conservative. However, I am an ideologue and not a partisan. I make just as much noise about Republicans who are wrong too.

LK

Re:It's hard to believe

[Lord Kano]

Of course the Republicans wouldn't know anything about playing dirty though, would they...

Karl Rove was the master of it. The big difference is that he didn't have several broadcast networks prepared to publicly question the sanity of anyone who complained about his dirty tricks.

LK

Re:It's hard to believe

[Lord Kano]

I really like Penn.

If more atheists were like him, there'd be more atheists.

Many atheists, unfortunately for them they are some of the most visible atheists, like Dawkins and Hitchens come across as assholes. Assholery turns people off. Condescension turns people off.

Penn practices a principled non-belief that even many believers can come to understand and respect. In my humble opinion, he would have the best shot at becoming a successful atheist missionary(so to speak) but because he's not a pushy asshole, he wouldn't want the job.

LK

Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profiling

[jbeach]

This doesn't seem to be politically motivated, it just seems like common sense. If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes? Is it really that crazy for the IRS to look at people who claim to hate taxes, as having a higher likelihood of being tax dodgers?

What took so long?

[TubeSteak]

Tea Party groups were complaining about this in February of 2012.

Re:What took so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a diversionary tactic to take attention away from Benghazi.

Re:What took so long?

[Culture20]

Who is Benghazi?

Re:Very un-PC

[DaHat]

Organizations filing for tax-exempt status that are engaged in political work SHOULD receive the kind of scrutiny they got.

Sounds good in theory... and yet groups like Organizing for America and MoveOn.org remain unmolested... funny that?

It just makes no sense...

[jd.schmidt]

Why would IRS workers and the Taxed Enough Already Party not get along?

Re:It just makes no sense...

[sgt scrub]

What makes you think they don't? A hand full of Tea Party loyalists get together to target the Tea Party for the political gain isn't completely out of the question. Is it?

Insensitive?

[Intropy]

It was insensitive? Does the IRS think that the issue is that they insulted a particular group by singling them out? That's what it would have been if you'd just called them mean names. Actually using your authority as part of the government to target them is bit worse than "insensitive."

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[stillpixel]

Exactly what I thought when I first heard about it.

If you bitch and moan non-stop about taxes and not wanting to pay taxes, I think that would make you a demographic of interest in the eyes of the IRS.

Re:Very un-PC

[cold fjord]

What is so evil that this needs to be on every news feed in the world?

So you see no problem with an executive branch agency targeting the political opposition to the incumbent administration in a direct, focused way, apparently calculated to hinder their participation in the election process? You are unbothered by government officials illegitimately, and perhaps illegally, demanding membership lists? You have no sense that this sort of thing might undermine free and fair elections? You have no worries about government officials maintaining enemies lists? It strikes me that you have no useful comment to give on this matter.

Re:"Tea Party groups were livid on Friday."

[stillpixel]

I think it's only 5 days a week now, apparently the rank and file tea baggers didn't like paying their party dues.. so they had to cut back.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

The idea that protesting a law makes you an automatic violator of said law doesn't stand. (e.g. Protesting weed laws doesn't make you a drug dealer.)

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[spmkk]

If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes?

Only if people who belong to that group have actually been shown to be "more likely to try to dodge taxes". Do you have proof of that, or at least legitimate evidence?

Re:Very un-PC

[Bartles]

I would expect this rationalization from someone who perhaps asks, "what is so evil about fascism that it needs to be on every news feed in the world?". Of course, modern day fascists don't see themselves as fascist, much like insane people see themselves as perfectly rational.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't seem to be politically motivated

Especially since the IRS is an independent enforcement agency currently headed by a Bush apointee.

...except...

[cirby]

"'That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review,' Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association." The woman who heads up the division that handles nonprofits said this.

In other words, no, it wasn't profiling, it was just plain old political nastiness. "Absolutely incorrect" is the right phrase here.

"Profiling" would - maybe- come into play if the groups in question had a history of tax fraud. Unfortunately for the folks who did this, the TEA Party name comes partly from "Taxed Enough Already." No, they don't promote tax fraud - they just don't think we need any MORE taxes. They tend to be fairly law-and-order types, they just want some of the laws changed - or at least a moratorium on new ones that cost more money.

Re:...except...

[omni123]

In other words, no, it wasn't profiling, it was just plain old political nastiness. "Absolutely incorrect" is the right phrase here.

I've always applauded this logic; quote a comment an official makes that aligns with your views, dismiss the comments they make that don't.

Lerner said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias

(emphasis mine)

Re:...except...

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

You can agree with certain opinions and disagree with others without being contradictory. Unless you're asserting that you must either validate a person in entirety to quote them, and I surely hope you're not saying that, what's your point?

Re:...except...

[Coolhand2120]

It doesn't matter if it was "not motivated by political bias", a claim which itself is highly suspect, it was de facto political bias. Some groups withdrew their tax exempt status when illegally asked for donor lists. This surely had an impact on their operations and subsequently influenced the vote outcome. But it only happened to "right wing" groups so somehow it's OK because they want lower taxes. . This logic is sickening. I would argue that the fact they are critical of the IRS or the government would be a good reason to be very careful about such audits less they appear biased. That they are in fact biased confirms the conspiracy theories put forth by these groups.

The same group of people who say "this is OK" would be crying bloody murder if the tables were turned.

Re: Very un-PC

[Lord Kano]

Yes but they arent trying to throw the country under the bus just because the president is black.

No, they were willing to throw the country under the bus just to get a black president.

LK

Re:Very un-PC

[Bartles]

Not to mention that Media Matters still has it's tax-exempt status unquestioned.

on a serious note

[AdmV0rl0n]

I have a question...

Maybe more than one..

Under Bush, lotta crying, moaning, and bleeting from the people. Seems now the same people who did this are or have been involved in;

Cold blodded murder of enemy combatants (Bin Laden could have been taken. He was simply assasinated..) - remember the pictures of a soldier doing this under Bush? all hell let loose. Wot, now its ok cos the pres says so?

Illegal bombardment of other nations land, and illegal operations and flights over other nations airspaces. Drone use today is at an all time high..
Gitmo still seems to be open..
Still in Afganistan, and ever more so in Afpak.

Seems to me that the President and friends is getting a very big free pass on a lot of activities.
And some stuff is new, like drones over the US and further assassinations of unwanted or disliked individuals.

Whatever the background, the IRS should be politically independant and not a tool to be aimed at opponents.
I'm not American. But I have to say that in recent years it seems a lot of mud gets thrown. The republicans and tea party folks are accused of living in their own bubble. And I think thats true. But have to say, the other side is in its own bubble, and its not getting better. In fact, its getting really quite bad.

The President is murdering civilians. And he's issuing orders to kill people. And he seems to have no check or balance. Seems dem press are giving free rides. Doing so isn't proving loyaltly to their beliefs or so called values.

When 3000 Pakistani's die from drone strikes, will it turn to a Pearl Harbour for Pakistan?
More than anything else, put aside the politics, these policies and ideas are not more effective than Bush, or better than Bush. The current work isn't effective in even the medium term. Short term, maybe the US gets some people. But whole villages are being turned. Its winning hearts and minds, but not for the US. This is not going well. It may seem like it is on the surface, but thats all.

Re:on a serious note

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

Gitmo is a bad example to throw in, as the President signed a EO to close it - but got snared in red tape on the "how-to" part. Aside from that I generally agree.

Re:on a serious note

[jd.schmidt]

You are out of your mind if you think Bin Laden could have been taken alive. If you think we should have not run the mission, that is one thing. But it could not have been run any other way. And for the record I would have prefered for Bin Laden to stand trial.

The President did try to close Gitmo, I think we have to give him a lease a B for effort.

But the cross boarder attacks are an issue. just not a simple issue.

Re:on a serious note

[ttucker]

Don't worry, what happened in Syria was just a "kinetic action".

Re:on a serious note

[DaHat]

Gitmo is a bad example to throw in, as the President signed a EO to close it - but got snared in red tape on the "how-to" part

By his own choice.

How often do we here him pat his chest and proclaim "If congress won't act... then I will"? ... and often about things he doesn't have the authority to act on alone (which doesn't stop him (see illegal NLRB appointments as one example)).

You'd think a man with such a mentality could find a way to cut through the red tape (after ignoring it since early 2010).

Re:on a serious note

[dbIII]

You'd think a man with such a mentality could find a way to cut through the red tape

You are saying that about somebody who's a constitutional lawyer FFS? Whatever changes the US is going to get for better or worse are going to be slow and not about "cutting through red tape". Not that it's a bad thing, the rapid changes in Thatcher's Britain killed off 30% of the manufacturing industry that was run by her own side of politics and it's never recovered.

Re:on a serious note

[dbIII]

But the cross boarder attacks are an issue. just not a simple issue.

Complicated a great deal because a very large area is Tribal and not really run by either the governments of Pakistan or Afganistan, and it's been like that for at least a century.

Re:on a serious note

[AdmV0rl0n]

You are out of your mind if you think Bin Laden could have been taken alive. If you think we should have not run the mission, that is one thing. But it could not have been run any other way. And for the record I would have prefered for Bin Laden to stand trial.

The President did try to close Gitmo, I think we have to give him a lease a B for effort.

But the cross boarder attacks are an issue. just not a simple issue.

Sorry, I disagree. I believe Bin Laden could have been taken alive. I believe there was never any intention to take him alive, I believe the orders were 'kill' orders. And I believe the president and cabinet watched these kill orders.

I have zero feelings for Bin Laden, and I detest islam, and I detest Al Quida, and I detest Islamic culture, Jihadism, and the 7th century bullshit.

My problem is that - and this is vaguely where I sit. I'm an English Anglophile. I know my history. I understand our common laws, and the pain that was traversed through to reach them. I understand how America came about, and I understand the basic premise that in our History, we have due process in law. Some of this very long held and long won process is badly broken when a king in old school terms, or a president in new school terms is simply going to hold or kill opponents.
The limits we built to stop kings or .. in this case presidents doing this were done for good reasons..

And thats all well in play before we ever start looking at international treatise like Geneva convention.

The president now flies drones over US soil and can kill American citizens by his command?
I could have believed this activity came from republicans or Teaparty folk who go too far. Its harder to absorb when its being done by the ever morally superior Dems, who now think or believe they have... forgive me for this, but a god given right to be better than others. The sneering and jeering of 'democrats' aimed at these groups is lost on me. Maybe they are missing that from where I sit, I'm not seeing as big a difference as they might think they have here, and that is bad news.

The democrat press rah rah their own side while seeming to say or do nothing about problems is depressing. I'm old enough to Remember the Soviet union and Pravda. A free press is a press that actually gets off its ass and doesn't just rah rah its fav black president. Sorry if thats too un PC for people..

Re:on a serious note

[guspasho]

Mod parent up!

Bush had no problem steamrolling over the process to do whatever the fuck he wanted. He didn't ask Congress or anyone if he could open Gitmo. He just did it. He claimed his commander in chief authority. When you're the most powerful man in the free world, you can do a lot without asking permission. Obama is president and commander in chief now, and he's used that authority to start foreign wars and assassinate US citizens without asking the courts or Congress, among many other controversial and probably very illegal things. Obama could close Gitmo in a day if he wanted to. He doesn't want to. Simple as that.

That he claims his hands are tied is simply bullshit to avoid the embarrassment of admitting he broke a core promise of his campaign.

Re:on a serious note

[guspasho]

By "open" Gitmo I mean begin using it as a gulag. I realize it's been around for a while. Obviously.

Re:on a serious note

[guspasho]

"... I detest Islamic culture..."

Don't equate Islam and Islamic culture interchangably with al Qaida and jihadism and 7th century bullshit. Islamic culture is very rich and has contributed much to civilization. Your own culture isn't without its own flaws and stained past either. People don't go around judging your culture by the Westboro Baptist Church or Hitler. You'd do well to remember there's a LOT more to Islamic culture than jihadism and bin Laden.

Re:on a serious note

[AdmV0rl0n]

"... I detest Islamic culture..."

Don't equate Islam and Islamic culture interchangably with al Qaida and jihadism and 7th century bullshit. Islamic culture is very rich and has contributed much to civilization. Your own culture isn't without its own flaws and stained past either. People don't go around judging your culture by the Westboro Baptist Church or Hitler. You'd do well to remember there's a LOT more to Islamic culture than jihadism and bin Laden.

I will equte it. And PC wankers like you need to be told to quit doing this smokescreening. Islamic culture is a culture where 500,000 people demonstrate in public in Dhaka that Athiests and people of other religion should be hung. Its where abuse of women is at 7th century levels in very_much of the islamic world, and where female sexual mutiliation is supported by the leading schools and religion. You claim that its all innocent. Its a lie. In most islmaic states, the laws are not compatable with our world. Where else in the world are you put to death for leaving religion?

Do not tell me to not associate Islam with scum like Al Quida and terrorism. Go away. Go_and demand Islam modernise and break away from the bad things its wholly enrolled and wrapped in. Let every islamic state denouce themselves and remove from their laws the laws that are reprehensible and are not compatable with everyone else.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[DaHat]

If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes?

Interesting how you hear what you want to hear... or simply aren't paying attention.

I can't say I've heard all that many tea-partiers (and I've known and protested with quite a few) who are absolutely anti-tax in all forms... or uniformly claim that they are unconstitutional.

The beef has long been about the degree of taxation and how that money (along with what is printed) is spent.

Lemme guess... you also heard that there were tons of racists and tea party events with pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache... without ever knowing that the bulk of them are Lyndon LaRouche fans.

Re:Very un-PC

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

You're confusing the word "Fascist" with "Bully." This has nothing to do with nationalism and market control.

Re: Very un-PC

[DaHat]

Well said!

It is rather sad when many leftists simply write off opponents to the President as racists of some sort... as it does indicate what kind of issues they themselves have with race if that is the first thing that comes to mind.

MLK said:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character

And yet to the left... it is the color of ones skin, what sort of genitals one has, or what kind of genitals they prefer on the person they are with that is more important than the content of their character.

Reality Check

[G3CK0]

Here is a report from Fox19 Cincinnati reporter Ben Swann that aired in March 2012 : http://www.fox19.com/story/17061342/reality-check-is-the-irs-trying-to-shakedown-hundreds-of-tea-party-groups-across-the-nation.

It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[trims]

First off, I do think it was politically motivated, at least in the extent that someone decided to do something that would be looked favorably on the higher-ups. That's not OK, and people should get fired for it.

However, do note that what they are discussing here is auditing 503(c).4 organizations, to make sure they were complying with the regulations.

That is, these organizations are supposed to be engaging in NON-POLITICAL activities, for which we give them the benefit of being non-profit (and, making donations to them tax deductible).

There's been an explosion of 503(c).4 organizations over the past 4 years (after the Citizen's United decision), and a large number of them have been funded from "right-wing" sources. These organizations have been very lax about filing the proper paperwork about their donors, and in fact, have been downright secretive. And many of them are engaging in activities that very much skirt the line (if not cross it entirely) of political advocacy. The quantity of money (and number of organizations) engaged in this kind of shadowy advocacy/political support is very seriously tilted towards right-wing sources.

The fact is this: if you want to engage in political activity, then fine. Government can and should not have any say about your content. But if you want to get tax-free benefits, then there's a certain set of rules that you MUST play by, and claiming that this is suppressing Free Speech because we won't give you the benefit while you violate the rules is sophistry.

All 503(c).4 organizations need more scrutiny. I'm pretty sure that the IRS was engaging in the equivalent of racial profiling here, with the added notion of pleasing some political higher-ups. But at the end of the day, if those 503(c).4 organizations were breaking the law, then it's hard to say the IRS wasn't doing it's job by auditing them.

Re:It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[clonehappy]

But at the end of the day, if those 503(c).4 organizations were breaking the law, then it's hard to say the IRS wasn't doing it's job by auditing them.

I agree for the most part, except for the fact that they weren't breaking the law!

From the following link, the IRS investigator Lerner had to say: "150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked..."

They "apologized". Well isn't that sweet?

Re:It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[ebno-10db]

All 503(c).4 organizations need more scrutiny.

That category needs to be abolished, because it's ridiculous to say they can engage in politics as long as they "mostly" do something else. I'm not excusing what was done, but 503(c) is ridiculous.

Re:It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[TubeSteak]

However, do note that what they are discussing here is auditing 503(c).4 organizations, to make sure they were complying with the regulations.

That is, these organizations are supposed to be engaging in NON-POLITICAL activities, for which we give them the benefit of being non-profit (and, making donations to them tax deductible).

A) It's 501(c)4
B) Donations to 501(c)4 organizations are generally not tax deductible.
C) The purpose of a 501(c)4 organization cannot be primarily political

Re:It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[EmagGeek]

"There's been an explosion of 503(c).4 organizations over the past 4 years (after the Citizen's United decision), and a large number of them have been funded from "right-wing" sources. These organizations have been very lax about filing the proper paperwork about their donors, and in fact, have been downright secretive. And many of them are engaging in activities that very much skirt the line (if not cross it entirely) of political advocacy. The quantity of money (and number of organizations) engaged in this kind of shadowy advocacy/political support is very seriously tilted towards right-wing sources. "

I am sure you won't mind sharing your evidence for these accusations you are making.

I'll wait.

Re:It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[Alsee]

except for the fact that they weren't breaking the law!

From the following link, the IRS investigator Lerner had to say: "150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked..."

Wow, you deserve some sort of award for that brazen quote mining. And what are the words you cut out with that dot dot dot?
"150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked [dot dot dot] though some withdrew their applications."

It sounds like some groups were attempting to break the law (perhaps due to ignorance or error in what non-profits are permitted to do), and withdrew their tax-exempt-applications when IRS investigations caught their violation. Although at the moment we have no indication whether or not Tea Party groups were among those withdrawing tax-exempt claims.

-

Re:It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[stenvar]

That is, these organizations are supposed to be engaging in NON-POLITICAL activities,

That's just not true. Nonprofits are perfectly within their rights to engage in political activities. What they may not do is support or oppose specific candidates or intervene in elections; that's a much more narrow restriction.

Re:It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[LoyalOpposition]

It sounds like some groups were attempting to break the law (perhaps due to ignorance or error in what non-profits are permitted to do), and withdrew their tax-exempt-applications when IRS investigations caught their violation.

I suppose it's possible that as many as 149 out of those 150 organizations withdrew their applications because they intended to do something illegal. I can't agree that they withdrew their applications when the IRS caught their violations, because the IRS didn't catch any violations.

However, it's also possible that none intended to do something illegal. Instead, it's possible that they withdrew their applications when they found that the IRS was going to, in the IRS's words, violate IRS policy in pursuing them and their families in a manner that was, in their words again, wrong, incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.

You know; either way.

~Loyal

Re:It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[Alsee]

I think the illegal/violations language we've been using is a poor fit to the situation, and may be muddying things.

Organizations were applying for tax-exempt status. Obviously those applications should/will only be approved if the organizations activities were and will be within the legally defined limits of what tax exempt organizations are allowed to do. I was saying that it appears that in at least some of these cases applications were withdrawn because investigations identified problems where organizations were not within the legal bounds for tax-exempt approval. Note that I specifically did not suggest the organizations had any intent to break any laws. I specifically indicated that any invalid applications could be innocent mistakes "perhaps due to ignorance or error in what non-profits are permitted to do".

Further note that I was not addressing the entirety of the situation, I was not claiming investigators did nothing wrong. I was replying to "150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked". I felt that was a flagrantly out-of-context quote, selectively editing out the fact that "some withdrew their applications". I felt it gave a rather misleading impression that there was a pure witch-hunt against categorically innocent victims. The investigators' job is to investigate tax-exemption applications and ensure improper ones do not get approved. And when an organization's name and activities have a strong political interest of any stripe, and they push up against the limits of what is permissibly under tax-exempt status, it warrants closer examination than a non-ideological "feed the homeless" group. And yeah, it looks like some "highly motivated" investigators went way over the line in that closer scrutiny. It looks like some people definitely need to get fired.

A lot of the coverage seems to suggest the existence of a "Tea-Party-in-the-name" pile is itself the problem. Maybe it's a nitpick, but I think that's slightly off target. I think any and every politically-affiliated term is good reason to toss applications in piles for routine closer scrutiny. But it's seriously fucked up if agents are personally grabbing the cases of groups they dislike and violating standard procedures going after them.

I still want more more details to come out. If there was a flood of inexperience Tea Party groups filing a flood of non-compliant tax-exempt applications, and if it turns out those investigations were comparable to other non-compliant applications, then the story may be overblown. But as I said, it's seriously fucked up if agents were selecting their own cases, breaking rules, harassing applications that were in fact valid. There need to be strict mechanisms in place to prevent that sort of thing. I don't want groups of any political persuasion getting away with invalid tax-exemptions, and I don't want anyone hijacking their government position against anyone they dislike. That needs to get smacked down, hard.

-

Re:It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[Alsee]

So because they withdrew their applications, these attacks were ok, because obviously they were trying to hide stuff the IRS was digging up???

If most of the applications at issue were withdrawn, and withdrawn because they were non-compliant with being tax-exempt, then it is entirely possible that any particular probing-questions could have been directly related to whatever issue made them non-compliant. *If* they were valid questions investigating genuine tax-exemption issues, then claims of persecution do not exactly indicate any attack actually existed at all.

From the available story so far, it does seem some sort of abuse occurred. I want more details to come out. It seems some people may have seriously abused their positions violating rules to "attack" the perfectly valid applications of groups they disliked. Which would be seriously fucked up, and people should be fired. But if these applications turned out to be invalid, and the investigations were directed to those non-compliance issues, and the investigations were comparable to other investigations of non-compliant applications, then this story could be a tempest in a teacup.

I want it investigated thoroughly. I want more details. If investigators were violating rules and harassing perfectly valid applicants for ideological reasons, then I want them fired.

-

Re:Very un-PC

[DaHat]

Maybe because groups like MoveOn.Org and co are *gasp* actually following the rules!

You seem to be implying that the tea party groups investigated were not doing so.

Care to cite some specific evidence of both?

Oh right... the fact that the police haven't come knocking at the door of MoveOn.Org proves they've done nothing wrong... and obviously every Tea Party group is guilty as sin because they got an angry letter from the IRS... even requesting information in violation of IRS policy.

Riiight.

Re:Very un-PC

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

If we credit the definitions of political terms to the actions of governments that have worn those words as badges, we will quickly find all political terms to homogeneously mean 'tyrant'.

Re:Very un-PC

[Anonymous Coward]

All these conservative organizations WERE following the rules. They all passed the audit. The IRS showed impartiality by selectively forcing conservative organizations to PROVE they are following the rules, without any evidence to suggest they aren't. Sorta like a fishing expedition.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[Gothmolly]

Except it's most often liberals who think that rules should apply to everyone else.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[dfenstrate]

This doesn't seem to be politically motivated, it just seems like common sense. If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes? Is it really that crazy for the IRS to look at people who claim to hate taxes, as having a higher likelihood of being tax dodgers?

Yeah, those tax-evading tea partiers like Timothy Geitner and a good portion of the white house staff. It's about power, and exercising power to the detriment of your enemies and the benefit of your friends. The Rule of Law is not the point. It's Chicago style politics writ large. There will always be people, like you, who will rationalize and defend the behavior as a method of servicing their ideological tribesmen. In generating excuses and furthering the degrade of the rule of law, you are a retrograde, who pushes humanity towards baser tribal behavior, and away from enlightenment values. But f*ck it, they're on your team, so it's all good, right?

Re:Terrorists deserve investigation

[Anonymous Coward]

OK and when Left Wing extremists carry out terrorist attacks the left welcomes them and appoints them to positions in the university system and has them speak on behalf of their candidates. I am talking about Bill Ayers et al. Sheesh, talk about double standards.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Certainly. But if police pull over cars with "Weed is awesome!" stickers more often than "DARE to keep kids of drugs stickers", would you really be surprised?

That's the essence of profiling. I'm somewhat divided on the idea of profiling, I don't like it and I'm sure it's overly applied. But profiling isn't necessarily wilful persecution, that's all I'm saying.

Re: Very un-PC

[Dishevel]

Yup.
You either agree with the Presidents agenda or you are a racist.
Either you want the government to spend even more or you want black children to starve.
You are for more government or you are an anarchist.

The left has it all tied up in a neat little package.

Re:Very un-PC

[DaHat]

They didn't target a political organization

Correct... they didn't explicitly target the Tea Party Patriots of Golden Valley, MN (to make up a name off the top of my head)... they did something far more sinister, as you say:

they did a keyword search to find anything with the words, "tea party" or related and audited that

They targeted specific words of their target group they sought to punish.

Try that another way... would you still be saying "the IRS didn't target a specific race!" if the tax guy doing keyword searches for people named Juan, Jose, Jesus, Javier, Maria, or Consuelo?

All Americans should be bothered by this

[srichard25]

If you are an American and this doesn't bother you, then I hope some group of yours gets targeted by the IRS next.

"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

The "low level" people who did this should be fired immediately to send a clear message that it is not ok for government agencies to specifically target and use their power against groups that they disagree with.

Re:All Americans should be bothered by this

[EmagGeek]

The "low level" people had nothing to do with this except to be scapegoats for Obama's tyranny.

Re:Very un-PC

[Dishevel]

Awesome way to spread the FUD bro.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

I wouldn't be surprised, but I would be upset. Just as I'm upset here. Don't write it off because you dislike the victim, that's the point.

Regardless of your political background

[Karmashock]

This should seriously worry you. Remember that anything used against one side can be used against the other.

Want liberal groups harassed by the IRS? Or should we do something about protecting political speech and preventing federal agencies from being used partisan chess pieces.

How can we trust the FBI or the CIA if we assume they're loyal to a political party and not the American people and the law?

This is non-functional.

Re:Regardless of your political background

[phantomfive]

Want liberal groups harassed by the IRS?

It's already happened. Nixon used the IRS to harass 'radical' groups he didn't like. Obama threatened to do the same (in jest). That's why this situation doesn't look very good for him, even though it's unlikely he was involved.

Re:Regardless of your political background

[Karmashock]

I didn't mean to imply this was the first time. Rather that it is a shared threat to all factions.

Public institutions must be neutral and impartial or they cannot legitimately regulate all groups.

If the IRS doesn't clean house then it will have credibility problems when it gets to court.

Same thing with the EPA etc. If these groups can be demonstrated to be biased then they'll lose legitimacy.

Its clean up or die.

Re:Regardless of your political background

[Karmashock]

unlikely... this sort of intimidation thrives in darkness. This is very damaging to the IRS.

Re:Regardless of your political background

[phantomfive]

Yes, I was basically backing you up.

Re:Regardless of your political background

[khallow]

The problem with the "You don't want this to bite you in the ass, do you?" argument is that every time, say, the Democratic Party tries to abide by some legislative tradition during majority, they get steamrolled by the GOP when they're in the minority over the same traditions. This even occurs when the Democrats try to abide by traditions in the minority, finding the GOP, say, drastically increasing the frequency of filibusters when the Democrats are in the majority. The assumption that the other side won't do as long as you play nice now is inherently flawed.

Your entire argument is ridiculous. We should allow Republicans to have access to such loopholes and exploits because they're aggressive, "give an inch, take a mile" type of people. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Regardless of your political background

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Yes, this is the sort of thing that should grab our attention and cause us to check for abuse of power.

In this case, one of the first steps in investigating is to check who appointed the IRS commissioner.

Re:Regardless of your political background

[AdmV0rl0n]

Maybe you missed this. But supposedly when you are right, and its wrong to suppress groupings who don't agree with you, and you stomp your feet about it and demand a better civilisation - You aren't actually supposed to start doing the same when you hold the reins. Maybe you fucking missed the memo.

If its ok - then why are you complaining about McCarthy'ism. If its all ok, then don't. Otherwise, grow a pair of balls and stand up for what you believe in. That Gov (whoever that is) should not do this kind of thing. Either you believe in it or you don't. Its not a pick and fucking choose menu.

Re:Regardless of your political background

[onyxruby]

I'm out of mod points or I'd would be adding another +1 insightful to your comment. Branches of the government should not be used as weapons of political parties.

Re:Regardless of your political background

[bill_mcgonigle]

Remember that anything used against one side can be used against the other.

Not if your "side" is the authoritarian establishment types.

Re:Regardless of your political background

[Karmashock]

We all have sharp teeth and eyes that shine by night.

Things can get very ugly if they want to play a game of chicken over this issue.

Re:Regardless of your political background

[Karmashock]

No... you investigate every instance and track it back until you can find the person responsible for it. If it goes all the way to the top then it goes all the way to the top. But you don't presume that.

You investigate impartially lest you make the same mistake by demonstrating prejudice in your investigation.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[Qzukk]

Protesting weed laws doesn't make you a drug dealer

Of course not, but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find a Republican that would disagree with cops searching the group of NORML protesters marching on 4/20 to see if they're carrying any.

Re:Very un-PC

[trims]

MoveOn.org isn't solely a 503(c).4 organization. They're very explicitly split into two branches: the main site, which engages in all the permissible organizational and democratic (small 'd') stuff, and the MoveOn PAC, which explicitly is a registered PAC and does promote candidates and specific issues. Their books are separate, and open, and the sections of the web site where PAC vs 503 stuff goes on is clearly demarked. Donations are also clearly marked as to whether you're giving to the PAC or the 503.

The problem with many of the newer 503(c).4 organizations is that they:

(a) don't file the appropriate paperwork, so it's hard to see if they're complying with the reporting and transparency requirements

(b) Engage in activities that are, at best, grey advocacy, and at worst, outright political support of individuals and issues.

I do agree that we need more auditing, and that the selection of who to target was wrong. But that doesn't mean there isn't a serious problem on the Right around this, particularly since there's been a whole lot more money poured into Right Wing 503(c).4 orgs in the past 4 years, and also because the vast majority of these organizations seem to be very heavily politicized, and much less socially-oriented.

FYI - laws say it's fine for a 503(c).4 to advocate certain general positions (i.e. "Clean Water", "Less Coal, more Wind", and do what used to be called "Community Organizing"), so long as they did not promote specific candidates or parties or legislation/initiatives. The problem has been that may 503(c).4 orgs aren't obeying those restrictions. That is, you see a lot of Left-Wing 503(c) doing general voter registration and promoting Big Causes. Recent Right Wing stuff has heavily been oriented around "Defeat taxation" and "Stop Immigration" and the like, which leads (or is intended) to be mostly legislative lobbying, which is NOT OK for a 503(c).4

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[amiga3D]

I know it is a waste of time but....the Tea Party isn't so much anti-tax as saying Taxed Enough Already. That's it. I don't mind paying taxes, well.....not so much, but I just want some kind of limit on it. Every time I turn around someone wants more. I say how much is enough and they just holler MORE, MORE, MORE. And that is the problem. Fucking enough already. I pay over half my income in taxes and that is more than enough. It's time to cut someone's handouts.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[fustakrakich]

Is it really that crazy for the IRS to look at people who claim to hate taxes, as having a higher likelihood of being tax dodgers?

That's exactly what the really big tax dodgers want them to do while they lay low and keep their mouths shut. These noisy small fries are the best way to divert attention, and might even be the reason for their existence. Yes, it is that crazy, and it's wrong.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Whoa, slow down there: profiling is not persecution. That's all I'm saying. And this seems almost certainly to be profiling.

Nearly all conservatives I know approve of paying special attention to people with Muslim backgrounds when trying to root out terrorists. That doesn't seem to be considered as persecution, that's considered profiling too.

This just happens to be a case where conservatives are probably being profiled. And I say, good for the goose then good for the gander.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

I definitely agree with you there. I don't like the idea of profiling at all.

It does seem to me that the converse of what you say is also true: a lot of conservatives don't mind if it's some pot-smokers or some Muslims who are profiled - then it's "If you're innocent, you've got nothing to lose." But as soon as it's people like them who are being profiled, it instantly becomes unacceptable. You know?

You cannot have it both ways.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you say the right wing is the ruling class you ingore the fact nearly every actor in Hollywood backed Obama. Warren Buffet is a liberal. Steve Job was a liberal. Bill Gates, George Soros, I could go on.

And Soros has funded many PACs out of his spare change.

NASCAR is marginalized as white trash and blue collar and... right wing.

The wealth in this country exists in Blue States. The Red States are considered "flyover country".

Re:You cannot have it both ways.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what, as an outsider, I think the real problem is that the US has completely lost sight of what "Left wing" and "Right wing" or "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean. Hell, you're applying political labels to a non-political sporting event: how is that rational?

People need to stop screaming at each other and tossing labels around like "Tea bagger" and "Libtard", because you're helping no one.

Re:You cannot have it both ways.

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

Because there's a near complete saturation of the fan-base. It's not actually such a wild association to make. In the same vein, art students are liberals in America. Just how groups tend to stick together.

Re:You cannot have it both ways.

[ebno-10db]

NASCAR is marginalized as white trash and blue collar and... right wing.

Because there's a near complete saturation of the fan-base.

Such generalizations. I have it on good authority that Trotsky was a NASCAR fan.

Re:You cannot have it both ways.

[khallow]

You know what, as an outsider, I think the real problem is that the US has completely lost sight of what "Left wing" and "Right wing" or "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean. Hell, you're applying political labels to a non-political sporting event: how is that rational?

It's politics. And I suppose sports has no political or social connotation in the rest of the world. The same people play soccer and race yachts, right?

Re:You cannot have it both ways.

[kenh]

The "Right Wing" represents a little over one-half of one-third of the federal government, they are the "ruling class"?

Were the Democrats the "ruling class" when they likewise held numerical control of the House, but the Republicans held the Senate and the Oval office under George Bush's last two years in office?

I don't remember them being referred to as the "ruling class"...

Re:You cannot have it both ways.

[BonThomme]

"And Soros has funded many PACs out of his spare change."

and 8 billion dollars to humanitarian causes, but that always seems to escape your practiced eye.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[Kielistic]

I can almost guarantee there'd be a significantly higher percentage of users in the group than in the general public though. Probably a higher percentage of dealers too.

Where's Carmen Ortiz when you need her?

[schwit1]

This is the kind of thing a federal prosecutor ought to be sinking their teeth in to.

I guess there's more terrorists to get AFTER they blow something up.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[seanvaandering]

Protesting weed laws doesn't make you a drug dealer.

No, but it makes it more likely that you could be, and considering the law of averages, i'll put real money that there are more people carrying weed in their pockets (and breaking the law) at those protests than anything else. The only reason police don't bother is it would become a PR nightmare, and generally not worth the paperwork, but make no mistake - they could round them all up in a heartbeat and be completely justified in doing so.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

I don't have any evidence, I'm not doing it. : )

All I'm saying is, it seems like a reasonable connection to me, so I can understand the IRS pursuing this as a method of profiling. And it certainly seems much more likely to me than some sort of grand conspiracy from the top.

Hell, if anything Obama owes his reelection to the Tea Party. The Tea Party foisted one completely insane candidate after another on the GOP, and forced Romney to go so far to the Right in the general that when he came back he simply wasn't credible as a moderate.

Definition of 'social welfare'

[quantaman]

"These groups claim tax-exempt status under section 501 (c) (4) of the federal tax code, which is for social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these organizations are allowed to participate in political activities but their primary activity must be social welfare.
[...]As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn't the group's primary activity."

From that description all the tea party groups, along with the liberal counterparts like moveon.org, shouldn't be tax-exempt because unless I misunderstand them their primary purpose is pretty damn political. Of course you can't enforce the law against only one set of groups but I wonder if the workers aren't being penalized because they were the only ones actually doing their jobs.

Read the ******* article now

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are wondering what the fuss is about, then read the article. Excerpt:

Third, and perhaps most troubling, those tea-party organizations were sent letters of inquiry demanding information that would seldom if ever be demanded of any other applicant in the process. The IRS demanded lists of donors, names of spouses and family members, detailed information about political views and associations — all of that "under penalties of perjury." Many applicants dropped out of the process. The questions were remarkably invasive: For example, the IRS demanded to know not only whether political candidates participated in public forums conducted by the groups, but which issues were discussed, along with copies of any literature distributed at the forum and material published on websites. (The IRS has been less forthcoming with its own materials related to this investigation.)

Even if you are opposed to the Tea Party, this should trouble you. Imagine the shoe on the other foot... let's say a hard-line right-wing President gets elected, and the IRS starts going after LBGT groups in this way. Would you still be okay with it? If not, you damn well shouldn't be okay with it now.

Rights are for everyone, not just people you like. And people have the right to not have a goverment agency abuse its power to squash their exercise of free speech.

Are you angry about this? You should be.

Re:Read the ******* article now

[EmagGeek]

" Imagine the shoe on the other foot... let's say a hard-line right-wing President gets elected, and the IRS starts going after LBGT groups in this way. Would you still be okay with it?"

Interesting hypothetical, just like the hypothesis that monkeys might some day sprout wings and engage in aerial transportation out of my sphincter.

"Rights are for everyone"

There is no such thing as a Right. A Right is something that cannot be taken away from you by any means. Everything you think you possess as a right can be taken from you by government. Except, there is no functional way for the People to return the favor. Therefore, Rights are not for everyone. They are only for government.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

It was objectively unacceptable the entire time, both in essence and in public opinion. You're touching on some of the most talked about issues in America - things that get a whole shit-load of attention and action against them, so no, it didn't "become unacceptable" suddenly and there isn't an air of acceptance when this goes the other way. Stop rationalizing why this is acceptable, it's not.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[ttucker]

This doesn't seem to be politically motivated, it just seems like common sense. If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes? Is it really that crazy for the IRS to look at people who claim to hate taxes, as having a higher likelihood of being tax dodgers?

Is this really the very best IRS apology that you can come up with?

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[ebno-10db]

you ignored the second half of the sentence, "in public opinion"

How did you determine that right wing groups are marginalized in public opinion? You do realize that a much larger percentage of Americans call themselves conservatives than liberals, right?

Re:Very un-PC

[brendank310]

Try that another way... would you still be saying "the IRS didn't target a specific race!" if the tax guy doing keyword searches for people named Juan, Jose, Jesus, Javier, Maria, or Consuelo?

Religious institutions are tax exempt. Also, where is my cut of the student loan money?

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Interesting how you hear what you want to hear... or simply aren't paying attention.

Interesting how many people can do that. : ) Also interesting how you can assume a lot of things about me, what I hear and what I'm paying attention to.

I can't say I've heard all that many tea-partiers (and I've known and protested with quite a few) who are absolutely anti-tax in all forms... or uniformly claim that they are unconstitutional.

Uh-huh, sure. But haven't you heard MORE tea-partiers be completely anti-tax, than any other political groups even half their size?

And thus, since a randomly-selected tea partier is *more likely* to be completely anti-tax than a member of any other large political group I can think of, that's why the IRS would conceive of profiling them.

Lemme guess... you also heard that there were tons of racists and tea party events with pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache... without ever knowing that the bulk of them are Lyndon LaRouche fans.

LaRouchites tend overwhelmingly to be douches, no question. From the few that I have met, I am very confident in profiling them as douches.

People are usually ok with it if it isn't them

[Sycraft-fu]

You find a lot of tribalism in political life, particularly these days. People tend to view their group as the good guys, the other group as the bad guys. So because the "good guys" are doing it to the "bad guys" that makes it good. It is ok, it needed to be done because those bad guys are so bad!

Of course if the situation were reversed they'd howl and scream.

Re:People are usually ok with it if it isn't them

[BonThomme]

really, this is the one at the top of your list?

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[femtobyte]

And this is a major reason why profiling results in complete failure: if having DARE stickers on a car reduces chances of being pulled over, then drug runners will slap DARE stickers (and maybe a "Friends of $CITY Police Department fundraiser campaign 2013" decal for good measure) all over their smuggling cars.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Is that how you profile liberals? : )

Re:seems reasonable to me

[ttucker]

that a bunch of people who spend a lot of time whinging about taxes and telling each other stories about being tax protestors and evading or even avoiding tax, may actually be good targets for tax audits.

i.e. if you're doing your job of loooking for people avoiding tax, then starting with people who are ideologically inclined to avoid tax would be sensible and, likely, productive.

I have a news flash for you, people in the Tea Party complain about paying taxes because they actually do.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[DaHat]

Whoa, slow down there: profiling is not persecution.

That would depend on the degree of 'profiling'... and how much secondary work is involved.

Given the amount of data that was being requested from these groups (and the costs involved in complying)... some of it illegally... yes, this is an act of persecution, not profiling.

Or would you not say that a person who is profiled every time they fly into a secondary strip and cavity search before being allowed on the plane isn't being persecuted (vs just being wanded)?

"Nope! Still just profiling, now bend over and cough!" - jbeach?

Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

And this illustrates what I was trying to tell "US" - when the W. Bush administration was grasping for more power for the Executive branch, I warned, "All powers they get and abuse will be abused by the other guy."

And here we are.

And the next President will have even more power.

Re:Exactly.

[BonThomme]

Bush 161 signing statements
Obama 21 signing statements

IRS Motto

[PPH]

We've got what it takes to take what you've got.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Agreed there, to at least a certain degree. I'm sure there is a lot of confirmation bias in the application of profiling. And when statistics do come in, in the results can be wrong enough to be very amusing. The best recent case of this was when Florida applied drug testing to welfare recipients - and found they had a lower percentage of drug users than in the general population. Which is obvious in retrospect. Of course people on welfare do fewer drugs - they're broke! But so it goes.

But yes, profiling is doubtful. There is a certain part of the mammal mind that does work off of generalizing off of scant information. It's theorized to have a survival value - all the times one generalizes a behavior is wrong are generally harmless to the individual, as long as the one time the individual is right it saves his life. It's like avoiding lions all the time, even though 23 hours of the day they probably aren't hungry.

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[ebno-10db]

Right wingers represent the ruling class. The 1%. The ones with money.

The right wing represents some of the ruling class (e.g. oil interests) but the "left wing" (actually Democratic party) does a pretty good job of sucking up to other parts of it. You realize that Wall Street heavily backed Obama in 2008, right? Obama's AG wouldn't see a financial crime if it jumped up and down in front of him. Obama's former SecTreas, Turbo Timmy, would sell his grandmother if he thought it would help the banks. Also, tech mostly supports Dems. Remember you're a xenophobe if you oppose the H-1B cheap guest worker program.

This sucks. The Dems tried playing a little hardball

A little hardball? This is downright Nixonian. And if it matters, there are many ways that I lean pretty far to the left. There is no excuse for suppression of political speech.

about how the police and FBI worked together to shut down OWS and the anti-1% movement

But the country was threatened by a bunch of people camping out in a park. Yeah, the FBI and police coordination, as though there were some national threat instead of a few local differences, was pretty disgusting. NYC Mayor-for-Life Bloomberg sending in SWAT teams at 2AM as though the protesters were some sort of incredibly dangerous characters that could only be taken by military force. They also did everything they could to keep the press away from that, undoubtedly for their own protection.

However, the FBI that helped with that was in the executive branch run by Obama. Don't forget that. And regardless of who was responsible for it, political suppression of your team doesn't justify political suppression of the other team. If we start thinking like that we might as well burn the Constitution.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[dfenstrate]

Whoa, slow down there: profiling is not persecution. That's all I'm saying. And this seems almost certainly to be profiling. Nearly all conservatives I know approve of paying special attention to people with Muslim backgrounds when trying to root out terrorists. That doesn't seem to be considered as persecution, that's considered profiling too. This just happens to be a case where conservatives are probably being profiled. And I say, good for the goose then good for the gander.

So, I assume you've got a list of actual tax dodging right wing political advocacy groups to back up your profiling comparison to Muslim radicals with a very real body count. No? Because a quick search (starting with Former Head Tax Collector & Tax dodger Timothy Geitner) will yield plenty of tax delinquents in, or on good terms with, the current administration.

The people you're trying to 'profile' still believe in the rule of law, even if the current law sucks. The people you defend don't; they believe in exercising power for the benefit of their team. Your comparison cannot be substantiated. Your defense is rationalization for your tribe, nothing more.

I welcome your actual proof to the contrary; that is, examples of tax dodging by the sort of groups in question that would justify profiling.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[argStyopa]

And the fact that they *happen* to be the party in opposition to the Chief Executive (you know, the IRS's boss)....sheer coincidence? In an election year?

Yeah.

Admission

[benjamin264]

What I find encouraging is that they at least admitted it... That has to stave off draconian law for a little bit longer, right?

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[kosty]

"make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes?"

If their organization is pulling down a multiple billions of $ every quarter, and/or individuals involved are worth at least a few million $? Absolutely!

Re: Very un-PC

[hondo77]

Nice excuse for the right losing two presidential elections they could have won had they fielded candidates who weren't such an embarassment.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[Ichijo]

Suppose they had used a Bayesian algorithm which determined on its own that tea party members were the most likely tax dodgers and therefore disproportionately picked tea party members for audits. Would that be against the law? If so, they would then have to remove the person's political party from the criteria the algorithm can use, just to stay within the law. The algorithm would no longer work so well, so it seems counterproductive to exclude certain criteria just because it involves a protected group of people.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Of course any lawbreaking should not be tolerated.

We may be getting into semantics here. But the implication of "persecution" here is that Obama/ The Government was mad at the tea partiers, and sicced the IRS on them to make the Tea partiers lives miserable.

And that's the implication that I disagree with. This seems much more likely a case of profiling than of that specific sort of vindictive persecution. Yes, of course profiling can be done to a degree that is wrong, intrusive, and despicable. Some would argue that any sort of profiling at all is morally and ethically wrong, and I have a great deal of sympathy with that position.

But profiling in and of itself is not political persecution.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

"completely justified"

Hahaha, no.

Re: Very un-PC

[Concerned Onlooker]

The last time around you either agreed with Bush or you were a US-hating liberal.

Re:Very un-PC

[Aighearach]

They didn't all pass the audit. Why are you telling lies about the record? Do the actual facts not fit your narrative? You're entitled to your own opinions and conclusions, but not your own facts.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

So, I assume you've got a list of actual tax dodging right wing political advocacy groups to back up your profiling comparison to Muslim radicals with a very real body count.

No, of course I don't. And I don't need to. Whether it's accurate or inaccurate profiling, the point is that it's still profiling. If you think the profiling is wrong, take it up with the IRS.

All I'm saying, once again, is that the IRS doing this makes much more sense as a case of profiling than as a case of willful political persecution.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Oh, come on. The Tea Party probably helped Obama get elected. He should thank them. That endless parade of Tea Party-pandering GOP candidates was amazing to behold. It was like a reality TV show.

Re:Very un-PC

[Aighearach]

Voter registration is a non-partisan public service.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

That's a case of a real-world implementation that makes sense to me. It does seem that it's pretty hard to review an organization's tax-free status without knowing who they support, however. So I don't think that removing political affiliation would work.

What would probably work best is not profiling in this manner, unless there was evidence of a systemic effort on the part of a certain type of *organization* to cheat taxes. And even if so, that profiling should only apply to the organizations and not any individuals within it.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

I don't know, I'm not trying to apologize. That might be why it seems like such a weak apology - it isn't one.

It's profiling. It could even be lousy profiling. All I'm saying is that this is almost certainly not some kind of gubmint conspiracy.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[the eric conspiracy]

I'm getting tired of conservatives stereotyping liberals.

Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

So profiling is okay when you want to harass brown-skinned people at the airport for looking like terrorists, but it's a big no-no when you look extra hard at the tax statements of people who are on record saying they don't believe in the social responsibility of paying taxes.

Just to make sure I understand the conservative mindset here.

Re:Very un-PC

[wierd_w]

Which would be functionally, and metaphorically astute as an observation.

All governments maintain a social order through the selectively applied use of force, or deprivation of liberties of individual citizens or demographics of citizens. (Eg, "tyranny")

Thus, all governments engage in tyrrany of one sort or another, including self-imposed governance methods. (Meaning the people impose them upon themselves voluntarily and without direction.)

The line between "benevolent" and "tyranical" is really grey spectrum, and not a line at all.

Instead of asking of one's government is tyranical, (since unless you are an amoral actor without culture, or peers, you MUST impose some personal tyrranies upon yourself, so the answer will *always* be "yes.") One should ask themselves if their government is NEEDLESSLY tyrannical, or ONEROUSLY tyrranical.

Any form of political philosophy from which a government may try to draw direction is still inherently tyrannical, and capable of being despotically so, even pure direct democracies.

When people say "fascist" as an adjective describing the behavior of a government, they are most often referring to the characteristic behaviors of governments who have claimed that mantle, and not the ideal of the mantle itself. (Much like "communist", "socialist", and "imperialist.")

Up until recently, this kind of generally condemned behavior from government has come from such "fascist" countries, who used such tactics openly and wrecklessly. While not strictly necessary for that kind of government, that kind of government has historically done such more often than not, in comparison to other philosophies. Hence, the application of the adjective.

Re: Very un-PC

[Ash-Fox]

From religions of course!

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[the eric conspiracy]

It's not Nixonian until you come up with the tape of Obama telling his aides to sic the IRS on the people on his enemies list.

Tax Exempt Status Should not be Misused

[litehacksaur111]

The purpose of filing for tax exempt status is if the organization is only operating for general public welfare and not political action or private interests. For example, MoveON is divided into 2 sections. The small local level organization part and the 503(c) 4 part. The NRA operates as a 501(c)4. By the way America Crossroads (Karl Rove), Americans for Prosperity (Koch Brothers), American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), are all right wing groups and they operate as non-profits. Please tell me in what way does a tea-party group promote the general welfare that gives them non-profit status. Rather is seems the only purpose that a tea-party group has is political. I think all political groups regardless of ideology should be forced to pay taxes. They are not benefiting the public welfare in any way.

Re:Tax Exempt Status Should not be Misused

[stenvar]

I think all political groups regardless of ideology should be forced to pay taxes. They are not benefiting the public welfare in any way.

What an incredibly cynical and and anti-democratic view. We're a democracy, and politics is what makes a democracy work.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

I'm saying that this seems clearly to me to be a case of profiling, rather than willful political persecution.

But, with that in mind, I do think that those who support profiling in all of the other cases you mention but not in this one are being hypocritical. And yes, any who support profiling in this case with the IRS but not in those other cases you mention, are being hypocritical as well.

Re:Very un-PC

[SuperAlgae]

The IRS was right to apologize, but they apologized for the wrong thing. They should have put EVERY political group seeking tax-exempt status through this kind of scrutiny. The fact that these groups (both left and right) get to avoid taxes while manipulating elections is embarassing. Of course, the real problem is that they have so much power and so little transparency to start with, but if the only victory we can get right now is to make them pay taxes, let's start with that.

Re: Very un-PC

[wierd_w]

Two wrongs do not make a right. (Please, no "make a left" jokes.)

Instead of going full on asshole against the conservatives, the left should have made it painfully clear that they didn't care about obama's race at all, and was inconsequential to his candidacy.

Instead, they said that if you didn't like him, for any reason, you were inherently racist.

Again, simply because your oposition are a bunch of drooling dumbfucks, does not mean that degrading yourselves to their level is called for, appropriate, nor desirable.

It just shows that you are drooling dumbfucks too, and should be ignored for exactly the same reasons.--being drooling opinionated dumbfucks.

Re: Very un-PC

[the eric conspiracy]

It seems to me you have FULLY embraced the package offered by the right.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

I agree with you, and I think it's a shame you've been voted down. I do wish people wouldn't vote others down for simple stating of an opinion, with insult to none.

Re:Very un-PC

[sgt scrub]

Religious organizations do not pay taxes. They can not be the target of the IRS. However, in this case the political organizations are so commingled with religious organizations I am surprised they are not always targeted by the IRS.

Re:Very un-PC

[Mashiki]

You realize that it's only "questioned" because the whitehouse uses MMFA as a talking point source right? Yeah, no political bias or partisanship there.

Re:Very un-PC

[WhatAreYouDoingHere]

I'm not sure about you, but I'm certainly entitled to my own facts.

Re: Very un-PC

[Alsee]

I messed up the editing the paragraph with the percentages. For clarity:

1998 South Carolina: 38% voted in favor of interracial marriage being illegal in the state constitution.

2000 Alabama: 40.5% of voters voted in favor of interracial marriage being illegal in the state constitution.

2011 Mississippi: Poll of Republicans: 46% said interracial marriage should be illegal, 14% not-sure, 40% legal.
P.S. I'm not sure if this was a general poll of Republicans or likely-primary-voter Republicans. Either way it's a rather gross set of statistics.

-

Re:Very un-PC

[sgt scrub]

There is a Catholic joke in here somewhere.

Re: Very un-PC

[Concerned Onlooker]

"Instead, they said that if you didn't like him, for any reason, you were inherently racist."

Actually, they don't. You haven't been paying attention if you don't realize there are many liberals unhappy with Obama.

The other point I should have been explicit about, since it was missed, is not that it's OK to do because the other guys did it. The point was that the conservatives are a bunch if hypocrites.

Makes perfect sense

[dbIII]

If you are in the job of looking for tax fraud then you'd think the chances of finding it are higher with groups that are ideologically opposed to the very idea of taxation.

Re:Makes perfect sense

[iggymanz]

the Tea Party does not oppose taxation; your ignorance is immense

Re:Makes perfect sense

[budgenator]

If you are in the job of looking for tax fraud then you'd think the chances of finding it are higher with groups that are ideologically opposed to the very idea of taxation.

What makes you think that these low level IRS agents, whose job was processing applications, would have anything to do with tax fraud? What is this some kind of "Minority Report" where they are procescuting crimes before they happen?

Re:Very un-PC

[uniquename72]

You seem to be implying that the tea party groups investigated were not doing so. Care to cite some specific evidence of both?

Michelle Bachmann's own staff is testifying against her about spending irregularities. Sharon Angle (from right here in the great state of Nevada) has already paid $25,000 in fines for spending her campaign funds illegally.

Those are the only 2 Tea Partiers I can name.

I'm a conservative who was once very hopeful that the Tea Party might help turn around the Republican Party (which is more about expanding the government and the debt than anything else). Then I went to a Tea Party rally, where I got to hear all about how it's the duty of all Americans to NOT pay taxes, and how the niggers are taking over.

So yeah, audit them. All of them.

Re:Very un-PC

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

If all the terms can be concatenated into bland euphemisms, then we're not actually communicating.

Re: Very un-PC

[dbIII]

The country was already under the bus. It's now crawling to the verge while getting run down by following traffic, but there's still a long crawl to go.

Re:Very un-PC

[Mashiki]

So wait, they targeted a political organization

Hey, they did the same thing to the NAACP, it was okay then. It's okay now right? No bias at all...useful to note that it was the democrats on the ground at the time doing the same thing to groups they disagree with.

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

Citation needed.

Re: Very un-PC

[ToastedRhino]

The only problem with your argument is that the head of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee, not an Obama one. No one even lost their tax exempt status. Yes it was wrong. Very wrong. But this will be turned into yet another witch hunt which leads to ever more closed and secretive government. We've reached the point in this country where it truly is better to just try to hide things in perpetuity since admitting a mistake consistently leads to hyperbole and posturing by the other side. Both parties are guilty if this. It was, after all, the administration itself that admitted what had taken place.

Re: Very un-PC

[wierd_w]

You must have a very short memory... (or are being specious.)

I am neither conervative nor liberal: I am an independent centrist, and don't care about obama's race any more than I care about the pope's birthmark. (Which is to say, I don't care at all.)

However, 9 years ago during the first inaugural campaign of now president obama, I was opposed to him as a candidate, as I noted that his intended policies greatly resembled FDRs, which historical analysis showed to WORSEN the depression, and not fix it. (Among others, such as the clearly unreliable natures of his campaign promises where he promised the moon to his constituents. I am always leery of "chicken in every pot" promises.)

However, despite these simple facts, and my direct applications of them, I was consistently and relentlessly accused of said racism at an alarming degree, even here on slashdot.

Having personally experienced the "drooling idiocy" first hand, I can assure you that there are asshole hypocrites on both sides, and they both sling lurid accusations and steaming shit at the middle.

Neither side is innocent.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

ACs don't need to be voted down to be at 0, they start there. He just wasn't voted up.

Re:Very un-PC

[tompaulco]

Voter registration is a non-partisan public service.
Sure would be if they registered both parties equally. But who is more likely to need the services of a voter registration service? People who are more likely to vote democratic, or people who are more likely to vote republican?

Works as intended

[EuclideanSilence]

What did you think the point of making the tax laws so complex and subjective was?
hint: it wasn't to help *you*

Gitmo, Red Dawn, and Empathy

[turp182]

Gitmo is a primary topic for me as it has lasted so long. Hundreds of people locked up and "interrogated" without specific charges, effectively outside of any legal system.

Gitmo is a "terrorist generating machine". How many family and friends of the detainees now support the "terrorists" or "insurgents"? How many strangers do simply on principal? Watch the original Red Dawn (not the terrible new "version"), I love it because the Americans are the insurgents.

Further, we are either at war in their countries or in their backyards, these days you don't even have the opportunity to be sent to Gitmo, you are just drone strike fodder.

And let's not mention the drone strikes, I'm sure they don't cause people to become "terrorists" or "insurgents". No, innocent people are expendable, so they understand.

Empathy is being able to feel something from another perspective. Consider the situations we have created in the countries where we have exercised war recently (these days Iraqis wake up wondering if a bomb will kill them, think about it, of course the alternative is whether Saddam would kill you, for the US it was a ). Consider your family member being in Gitmo with an effective life sentence. Consider the killing of a journalist and guides followed by the the people trying to help being killed as well (Geneva comes to mind for some reason). Imagine if these things happened in the US. Would you blindly accept the situation and be hopeful and supportive or turn against the aggressor. What if it happened over and over again?

As well, the aggressor has vastly superior technology, it sometimes feels like the US is Skynet and we Americans are the robots, our military is that effective on a ratio basis. At least in Red Dawn the invaders didn't have "wonder" weapons (although they out gunned the Wolverines for sure).

I watch Red Dawn every year on July 4th, I have for over a decade. It holds up well over time (True Genius, as much as I fondly remember it, is a very terrible, unwatchable movie now that I'm older). Red Dawn was the first PG-13 movie did you know?

Go Wolverines!!!!! Damn I love that movie.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Oh, ok. : ) Good to know people aren't necessarily actively being dicks then.

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[Aighearach]

You do realize that a much larger percentage of Americans call themselves conservatives than liberals, right?

No, that is actually a lie you just made up. Presumably you assume yourself part of a silent majority. But I encourage you to google it.

However that line is impossible to believe

[dbIII]

Most tea party members tend to lean libertarian, who are generally more socially liberal than Democrats.

Oh really? Ask a hard core libertarian what they think of a minimum wage or government provided social services, then go through all the steps that led up to the recent factory collapse in Bangladesh with them and see if they object to it. That building owner was living the libertarian dream where his government couldn't stop him doing anything he wanted by enforcing pesky regulations.
That's not saying that libertarians are evil, instead it's just pointing out that they are far too naive to understand what evil would rise unopposed in the sort of society they are advocating.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[SuperKendall]

Ask a hard core libertarian what they think of a minimum wage

That's a fiscal, not social, issue. Why would a libertarian want to be against hiring teenagers, which is the real-world effect of a high minimum wage? Not everyone needs to live on what they are paid, high minimum wages ignore this fact.

or government provided social services

Again a fiscal, not social, issue. Why can you not be fully for abortion without wanting the government to fund them?

Private groups have proven they can do a far better job of providing social services than the government.

go through all the steps that led up to the recent factory collapse in Bangladesh

Corruption is the base of that more than anything else. Libertarians are not "for" corruption thank you very much, and also "thanks" for using 600 dead factory workers as leverage for your arguments.

instead it's just pointing out that they are far too naive to understand what evil

It seems we are far less naive than you.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[dbIII]

That's a fiscal, not social, issue

I disagree very strongly.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe that anyone still brings up the completely debunked theory of minimum wage. How many times does history have to hit you over the head with the fact that you are basically trying to create the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine before you just give up and stop wasting everyone's time.

As for government provided social services ... shall we compare the performance of the 401k program to social security? Or would you like to start out with ANY example of a federal social program that isn't completely in the red? Government can not do anything better than the market can do for itself. Every time the federal government takes something over (like college loans) cost skyrocket and quality plummets.

Libertarians do not have an issue with local or even state regulations, but the one-size-fits-all federal regulations that treats the lemonade stand in California the same as the multibillion dollar factory in New York is legislative insanity.

Naive ... this is America.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

You keep referencing this "libertarian dream", but I don't think you're any sort of arbiter for Libertarian politics -- but, full irony intended, don't let me tell you what to say.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[White Flame]

The majority of the arguments against building codes are for people building on their own property for their own use at their own expense.

Yes, building codes are far more important during purchase or rental. In that case, if building codes didn't exist, then full disclosure and understandable ratings of building materials and practices would at least be necessary. If a rental agreement was required to say "Electrical safety rating: 0 Stars, Completely Hazardous via ASDF rating 2013" it wouldn't prevent anybody from doing anything, but would strongly disincentivize people from renting there.

I'm not promoting either direction, but that's at least how a complete argument from the libertarian side would go. Many of them are big on contract law, trying to ensure that contractual exchanges and agreements are properly informed and consensual. Of course, there are the "Well, you should have known better" side of things, but when it gets down to details like many take the route of making sure the legal agreement is more sensible

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[dbIII]

Tell me then, what's the libertarian view on government imposed building codes?

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[dbIII]

I love how the dream seems to be to remove the body that makes laws but have vast numbers of lawyers to sort out contract disputes, based exactly on what the libertarians seem to be unclear. Hopefully someday they'll wake up and understand that they are saying they want to keep the dirty bathwater but throw away the baby.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[vux984]

That's a fiscal, not social, issue.

Actually its both.

Not everyone needs to live on what they are paid, high minimum wages ignore this fact.

And advocates of no minimum wage ignores the fact that MILLIONS of people ARE living on those jobs in the real actual world.

Again a fiscal, not social, issue.

Depends which government provided social service one looks at. Medicare, Unemployment, Welfare... these are fiscal issues yes, but also social issues.

Gay marriage is a pretty pure social issue though, and Tea Party folks aren't lining up to support it, so your argument that tea partiers are socially liberal comes through pretty thin.

Private groups have proven they can do a far better job of providing social services than the government.

No, they haven't. That's a very controversial claim you've just made. That you can state it as if it was a settled fact is just silly.

Corruption is the base of that more than anything else.

Corruption is how it got past the regulations. Regulations that many libertarians argue shouldn't exist in the first place. Eliminating the corruption won't solve the problem if you eliminate it by eliminating the regulations too.

It seems we are far less naive than you.

I sometimes wish libertarians could have the world they wish for. As long as I don't have to live in it. They could use the wake up call.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[ArcherB]

Most tea party members tend to lean libertarian, who are generally more socially liberal than Democrats.

Oh really? Ask a hard core libertarian what they think of a minimum wage or government provided social services, then go through all the steps that led up to the recent factory collapse in Bangladesh with them and see if they object to it. That building owner was living the libertarian dream where his government couldn't stop him doing anything he wanted by enforcing pesky regulations.
That's not saying that libertarians are evil, instead it's just pointing out that they are far too naive to understand what evil would rise unopposed in the sort of society they are advocating.

I'm a libertarian and I can tell you that if the federal government does not have explicit permission from the Constitution to do something, than it is supposed to be unconstitutional for them to do so. At least that's what the 10th Amendment says. It also says that those powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states. The 10th Amendment is in the Constitution, by the way.

So, in using your Bangladesh example, it would be up to the state and local governments to handle the regulation of the business listed in your example. If the building collapsed, then it's your governor's fault, not the president's. That's the beauty of how it's SUPPOSED to work. If your state has lax regulations and you don't feel safe at your job, you are free to move to a state that has stricter regulations. Same thing goes for health care, speed limits, education system... everything that the federal government is not given permission to regulate.

(Of course, there is some wiggle room with the Commerce Clause, but if a company exists entirely within a single state and does all their business in that same state, the feds have no Constitutional authority to regulate them until the Constitution is amended giving them that right.)

You said to ask a libertarian. I answered.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[sociocapitalist]

Ask a hard core libertarian what they think of a minimum wage

That's a fiscal, not social, issue. Why would a libertarian want to be against hiring teenagers, which is the real-world effect of a high minimum wage? Not everyone needs to live on what they are paid, high minimum wages ignore this fact.

Exactly the opposite actually: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/the-minimum-wage-and-teenage-jobs/

or government provided social services

Again a fiscal, not social, issue. Why can you not be fully for abortion without wanting the government to fund them?

Yes social services are never a social issue.

It's a fiscal issue to you but it's a social issue to the society and everyone who lives in it, even if they are too narrow minded to see it.

It would be better that teens be well educated about sex with free access to birth control, which I suppose you would also contest due to the associated cost, unless you're a full on idiot like Sarah Palin that believes that telling kids not to have sex works.

Private groups have proven they can do a far better job of providing social services than the government.

No they haven't. They can be more financially efficient on a small scale but they cannot provide the scope needed to cover the entire population.

Perhaps you would rather live in a country without government provided social services like any third world country where only the wealthy have access to education and medicine, where diseases killed off long ago in our society by social (read free) medicine still run rampant?

go through all the steps that led up to the recent factory collapse in Bangladesh

Corruption is the base of that more than anything else. Libertarians are not "for" corruption thank you very much, and also "thanks" for using 600 dead factory workers as leverage for your arguments.

Of course without government regulation there is no need for corruption. The result would be the same, however.

The point of the original poster was that without government regulation such catastrophes would be widespread as there would be no regulation and no government oversight allowing such business owners to build or put their employees to work in shoddy and unsafe factories to save money.

instead it's just pointing out that they are far too naive to understand what evil

It seems we are far less naive than you.

If you had something to back up your propaganda then perhaps I would agree with you.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[dbIII]

Libertarians don't believe in less government, they just believe in private, competitive ownership of it.

You've got that mixed up with Medieval Feudalism.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[dbIII]

I'm confused - does that mean that libertarians are happy to be heavily regulated so long as it's on the State and not Federal level? That sounds opposite to the naive shouting I've heard in the past. It looks to me where I've hit that situation of people from all over the political spectrum that just happen to be standing under a banner with the same name on it.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[BonThomme]

market driven physics?

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[Bartles]

Minimum wage and government provided social services are not liberal, they are authoritarian.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[ganjadude]

for the most part you got it right. If the states want to do something, its up to them. IT is much easier to get things done in a state then at the federal level. if we dont like what happens in NY it is easy enough to move to NJ. The 10th amendment is pretty clear that 99% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional and us libertarians simply want the federal government to do what the constitution allows, and nothing more. lets the states do things their way and let the best states prosper

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[dbIII]

IT is much easier to get things done in a state then at the federal level.

Ah yes, sadly I'm very aware of that in the context of "easier to bribe" :(
Is that idea coming from Koch I wonder or did he join the libertarians because that idea was already in place?

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[ganjadude]

we have corruption at all levels. but on the state level even with corruption it is easier to get things fixed. for example how many chicago politicians have been arrested over the years (or at least shamed to step down) In NY there are 8 officials under investigation right now. But if we look at the federal messups under obama and bush, very few if any heads ever roll.

so while you may be right in some ways, you forget about the other ways its easier to stop the corruption.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[Richy_T]

Straw man argument is straw man.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[Richy_T]

Nice brush you're holding there. Good and, what's the word? Ah, "broad".

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[LynnwoodRooster]

Oh really? Ask a hard core libertarian what they think of a minimum wage or government provided social services

As a Libertarian, I'd tell you a Federal minimum wage law is unconstitutional. If - IF - there is a minimum wage law, it is the purview of the States, not the Federal Government (see the 10th Amendment). Furthermore, anyone with an iota of logic and reason would completely understand why a FEDERAL minimum wage makes zero sense - the cost of living throughout these 50 United States is quite disparate, and setting a single minimum wage for all makes zero sense. But you're probably a Democrat, so I wouldn't expect you to have that iota of logic and reason...

, then go through all the steps that led up to the recent factory collapse in Bangladesh with them and see if they object to it. That building owner was living the libertarian dream where his government couldn't stop him doing anything he wanted by enforcing pesky regulations. That's not saying that libertarians are evil, instead it's just pointing out that they are far too naive to understand what evil would rise unopposed in the sort of society they are advocating.

Those are State and local issues - the Federal Government should have zero input into local building codes. Again, building codes for Southern California should be quite a bit different from those in North Dakota - different climates, different geology, different environmental issues.

One size does NOT fit all - and that was the original intent of the Constitution - it limited the power of the Federal Government (explicitly so with the 10th Amendment) and it's why we're called a Republic. Each State was to do most of what the Democrats want the Federal Government to do; we were supposed to have 50 concurrent experiments running and competing, and hopefully pushing each State to be better than the others. Rather than healthy competition, the Political Left seems to want a system of mediocrity and blanket solutions without concern over whether it applies nation-wide.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[noobermin]

The problem with libertarianism is that they don't have that example, or that we do and they ignore it (much of the 3rd world). We have the example of the extreme-left and the extreme-right (communism, facism) and how they failed. However, we don't have the example of "extreme freedom" or the state of nature that libertarians can't or won't explain away as being the true result of their idealism. Some liberts actually think Somalia is a good example of the power of unregulated markets and thus study their "currency" as an example of the power of no-government but are sure to explain away their social problems due to culture, etc.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[LoyalOpposition]

That building owner was living the libertarian dream where his government couldn't stop him doing anything he wanted by enforcing pesky regulations.

Bangladesh is listed as 132 (out of 177) on the Heritage Foundation's 2013 index of economic freedom, which awards it the category of "Mostly Unfree." It's not quite as free as Tajikistan, but a little more free than Cameroon. It's not exactly a libertarian Utopia.

~Loyal

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[Aighearach]

drug dealers really do put DARE stickers on their cars, wear DARE tshirts, etc. And if their car otherwise matches a middle class stereotype, it works well.

Oh, well, THAT clears it up...

[Anonymous Coward]

MoveOn(.org) has nothing to do with MoveOn(pac), right?

No common people? No common activities? No Common facilities? Common Donors? (did the old NAZI Soros behind most left-wing/progressive outfits not give to BOTH?)

Let's face it... this is rotten stuff setup by lawyers of all political stripes that provides lots of work (billable hours, YIPEE!) for lawyers and accountants who work to stay within the letter of the law (to the degree that it's understandable at this point) while completely violating the spirit of the law. The only way to clean it up is to massively re-write the tax code, making it so clean and simple that any exceptions/exemptions stick out like the proverbial sore thumb for the world to see.

The IRS has hounded conservative religious organizations for decades, threatening their tax-exempt status if they say anything political (some churches have been threatened for simply allowing 3rd parties to hand-out leaflets in the parking lots), while ignoring blatant political activities (stump speeches, fund-raising, voter transporting etc) at left-leaning churches (Jackson, Sharpton, and Obama all did it) during the same years, so this is hardly shocking. It's interesting, however, that the Obama administration has been caught being so outrageous (actually using the IRS to demand the donors lists of their political opponents .... Paging Richard Nixon.... Paging Richard Nixon... )

Big government becomes a special interest all its own... government employees can be all-too-eager to help big-government officials clamp-down on small-government voter groups. This is every bit as dangerous as any "military-industrial complex"

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[Aighearach]

Fail. Those cases would be thrown right out regardless if the judge is left, right, or center. Just because you identify a higher probability of some class of citizen breaking some law, that doesn't create any probable cause to search them, and you are completely lacking oath or affirmation on which to base a search warrant request. So what are you going to do after you "round them up?" Let them go, that's what. As soon as the police supervisors gets to the scene.

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[ebno-10db]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_resilient_conservative_majority.html

Abuse not initiated by head of IRS ...

[drnb]

The only problem with your argument is that the head of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee, not an Obama one.

The only problem with your argument is that the abuse was not initiated by the head of the IRS, rather it was initiated by lower level staff. Want to bet on what those staff members political affiliations are? What their opinion on tax reform is (simpler rules, smaller irs, etc)? Government employee union reform? Which candidate they supported?

Re:Abuse not initiated by head of IRS ...

[BonThomme]

ah, so another Bush appointee having no idea what his organization was doing (or even does)

Re:Abuse not initiated by head of IRS ...

[ganjadude]

last i checked hillary wasnt a bush appointee and she had no idea what was going on 8 months ago, eventhough she got a phone call an hour after the attacks started. we got the head of the DOJ allowing guns to flow into mexico. but yes, 5 years affter bush is gone, kids in kindergarten never had bush as their president, but lets keep blaming him for all the worlds problems... not the person in charge now. thats the ameri...democratic way!

Re:Very un-PC

[Bartles]

By the IRS?

Re:Very un-PC

[Obfuscant]

How remarkably topsy-turvy your universe is.

There was no calculation to hinder the election process, because, even at worst, you are talking about having to pay taxes.

Never been harassed by the IRS, have we? Been asked to provide lists of data to support legal activities? Knowing that if the lists and data you provide aren't "good enough" to meet the tax-man's criteria, you will be forced to pay what could amount to years of back taxes AND PENALTIES that would wipe your organization out. If you don't think threats of IRS action are hindering to an organization, you are a fool. But then you say:

This thing does not undermine free and fair elections: you are thinking of congressional redistricting and voter identification laws.

So we know it for a fact. In your upside-down universe, being asked to prove you have the right to vote is undemining free and fair elections, while allowing anyone who walks in the door and asks for a ballot to vote is how fair elections are run.

You've certainly never lived anywhere near Chicago where the common knowledge is that under Dailey the first the cemeteries would empty out on election day to vote for the Dailey machine. Not making the corpses prove they have a right to vote certainly resulted in free and fair elections there, didn't it?

Your position that this is indicative of some shadowy fascist empire makes you sound like a fanatical lunatic, and your comments are abysmally without use. Grow up.

Oh, my, I think I just fed the troll. My bad.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[DaHat]

Interesting how many people can do that. : ) Also interesting how you can assume a lot of things about me, what I hear and what I'm paying attention to.

Based on the quality of what you've written above... many things can be gleamed... such as the fact that you are not a lawyer... and probably not very good at whatever job you do ("Nyeh, but my boss says I do a good job"). Heck, a quick read of a number of your comments on this wider thread indicate a sort of "it seems reasonable to me if I don't agree with them" sort of mentality... typical for a less than bright leftist (an oxymoron I know).

Uh-huh, sure. But haven't you heard MORE tea-partiers be completely anti-tax, than any other political groups even half their size?

And thus, since a randomly-selected tea partier is *more likely* to be completely anti-tax than a member of any other large political group I can think of, that's why the IRS would conceive of profiling them.

Ahh hearsay... so much fun!

You know... a black person is more likely to be convicted and sentenced to jail for a drug crime than a white... by your logic... or as you would say "and thus"... wouldn't any randomly selected black person be more likely to be engaged in the drug trade than a white "and thus" be fair game for further scrutiny?

As I said elsewhere... if that scrutiny is simply a second look... few would have a problem... if however that scrutiny enters the territory of being unduly invasive... then no, it's generally not permitted.

The lawyer of any person picked up under such a situation would first play the 'racial profiling' card and attempt to force the police to show that they are not randomly stopping/frisking/etc a disproportionate number of black people (or at least is smart enough to frisk enough white, yellow, green and blue people to make the black frisks not seem out of line) or that there was more than just the skin color of the person at play.

Of course this also ignores the fact that you are creating an interesting excuse for guilt by association... if a small number of people who choose to freely associate themselves with a larger group (ie Tea Party) and individually these small number of people spout a specific view ("taxing is unconstitutional, mkay!")... then the entire group is subject to further invasive attention because of the views of these people that the larger group did not strongly condemn and exercise from the larger group.

"But Muslims! What about how we treat Muslims! Only a small fraction of Muslims purport radical ideology and an acceptance of violence" some would say... which would be a fair point... if we required a good number of Muslim groups (or individuals) to jump through the same hoops that these Tea Party groups were illegally required to based on nothing more than the view of some cop or IRS agent.

And oddly enough... the # of people running planes into buildings, setting off bombs near the finish lines of marathons, attempt to set off car bombs in times square, plot to blow up airports, or engaging in 'work place violence' on a military base and who espouse anti-tax ideas is remarkably low.

Sometimes 'sorry' isn't enough

[reboot246]

I want to see somebody fired and/or prosecuted. Who did this? Who told them to do it? How high up the chain of command did it go? Who is ultimately responsible? When are we going to see Congressional hearings?

No, 'sorry' is simply not going to cut it for crap like this. This country is not a third-world dictatorship, even if we do have a President who thinks it should be.

Heads should roll.
And sooner rather than later!!

Re:Sometimes 'sorry' isn't enough

[relikx]

I can't tell if that's feigned outrage or bad sloganeering but really though, our President thinks the US is a third-world dictatorship how? How many Tea Party members were imprisoned and/or summarily executed? Do you remember though during the 2004 elections Bush's Department of Justice infiltrated liberal groups to try and get charges against them? I know you think "liberals" (which I am fairly conservative but have little faith in R's) just try to deflect back on Bush but I fondly recall things he did that reminded me of thuggery. I guess politics is eye of the beholder but it is telling you ask these questions that should be answered yet demonstrate your foregone conclusion that it must be Obama no matter what.

Re:Sometimes 'sorry' isn't enough

[Culture20]

I fondly recall things he did that reminded me of thuggery

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Re:Sometimes 'sorry' isn't enough

[relikx]

Well that's on me since sarcasm is hard to transfer online without the benefit of inflection but I know exactly what it means, thanks for checking. It was also meant as a rhetorical device to lessen my actual 'anger' on the subject too because frankly as much as I didn't care for Bush I didn't hate him the way people hate Obama. Bad president, sure, but not the manchurian anti-Christ that a lot of my FB friends seem to think of 44. And to be honest, I heard the same reports with OWS and Obama so perhaps the former criticisms are more on the police state in general and not any particular president.

Re:Very un-PC

[Obfuscant]

Religious organizations do not pay taxes. They can not be the target of the IRS.

You are patently wrong. It is the IRS that determines the tax exempt status of an organization, and the IRS can easily target a currently tax-exempt organization by simply saying "prove you should keep your exemption".

However, in this case the political organizations are so commingled with religious organizations I am surprised they are not always targeted by the IRS.

If you think that religious organizations cannot be the targets of the IRS because they are tax-exempt, then it is hypocritical to think that political tax-exempt organizations could be the target. The fact that you know that loss of political tax-exemption is a big stick the IRS brandishes means you should know that religious exemptions are also subject to harassment. In fact, this very IRS tactic makes religious leaders hesitant about using their first amendment rights to express their own opinions, lest the IRS claim they are practicing politics from the pulpit. I.e., a pastor has every right to tell me what he thinks of a politician based on the first amendment without having to fear the IRS.

Re:Very un-PC

[Bartles]

But this does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/budget-request-denied-sebelius-turns-to-health-executives-to-finance-obamacare/

"Hi, I'm Kathleen. I'd really appreciate it if you'd give large sums of money to the very special organizations on this list. I'm really just asking politely, be we both know I have the power to make things very difficult for you."

It is time to end all of this tax-exempt nonsense

[cpotoso]

Why is that tax-exempt status is granted to organizations that then turn around an pay handsomely to their CEOs et al.? And avoid corporate taxes at that? Why am *I* forced to subsidize someone else's choices when they donate $$ to a tax-exempt organization (be it a church, or tea party nut-bag)? Yes, I am subsidizing your nut-choice because you reduce your taxes (hence increase the proportion of my burden) by donating to that nut-bag organization. IT IS TIME TO END ALL TAX-EXEMPT STATUS, and TO END TAX REBATES TO DONATIONS.

You are really bringing out big guns for an audit?

[dbIII]

It's a tax audit FSS, so why the hysterical Godwin?
You are right that all citizens are in danger of the IRS looking at their financial records - but so what?

Re:Very un-PC

[Bartles]

I think there are more similarities to fascism, Italian style.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[Rockoon]

But haven't you heard MORE tea-partiers be completely anti-tax, than any other political groups even half their size?

Answer: No.

Either you have evidence that members of tea party groups are more anti-tax than the general population, or you do not.

Let me translate your question for you... "Come on guys.. I know I can't prove it.. but surely someone else has anecdotal evidence that supports my hate of these people! Come on, chime in! Lets support each other against those people!"

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[Goldsmith]

It is not ok to bend the rules just because maybe the politicians didn't mean to tie the hands of the civil service quite so much. It may make some logical sense, but it is still an improper use of the government and we shouldn't be ok with that.

All those nice arguments aside, you really need to read some of the articles on this event. This wasn't just profiling, it was the IRS asking for documentation and details that went beyond what they're allowed to ask for in an audit of one of these types of applications. If they had simply strictly audited every single application mentioning "Tea Party" it would have been a non-issue.

Re: Very un-PC

[OhPlz]

Not all opponents of the president are racist.
On the other hand, all of the racists are opponents of the president.

Are you sure about that?

"According to CNN exit polls, 93% of African-Americans, 71% of Hispanics and 73% of Asians supported Obama over Romney."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/09/blacks-outvoted-whites-in-2012-the-first-time-on-record/

Just checking

[taj]

This isn't a party issue its far more fundamental.

So some low level employees flagged several organizations for ... What checks are in place to make sure this did not happen and who is ultimately responsible for these checks? Are those people still there?

This is a distortion of what happened

[WOOFYGOOFY]

You're playing games with the word *they*. They , the offenders- were identified as low level workers. They- the IRS- was not aware of what *they* - the culpable people- were doing.

So when you say *they* did this, be clear who *they* are. It was not the IRS as an organization, from the top-down. It was low level workers.

In case you're from Mars- this is frequently how organizations work with Earthlings.

You can DEPEND on the fact that this has been done in the opposite way to the opposite side before. If this kind of abuse is permitted structurally, then this is not the first time.

The solution has to be structural, because it's structural problem (which permitted people to do this). The last thing anyone wants is the IRS being used as a tool for personal vendettas. No one wants that and frankly I am surprised that this is not strictly made impossible and frankly I expect them to *make it so*.

Notice that this tactic of attacking an organization via the deeds iof its lowest workers s very similar to what was done with ACORN. After repeatedly fishing for a low level employee who would act inappropriately on camera, James O'Keefe finally settled for someone who appeared to be acting inappropriately (but who actually called the police after O'Keefe and his confederate left).

Of course they're going to try to gin this up into a second term killing "scandal" *it goes all the way to the top!!!* * we have the smoking gun!!!*

It's what they did to Clinton with with Monica Lewinsky. They take as their model what happened to Nixon with Watergate. They have tried this with *every single Democratic President * since Watergate. The difference is of course that Nixon was a genuine crook who genuinely broke the law and genuinely tried to use the power of the government to cover it up and genuinely provoked a Constitutional crisis.

Re:This is a distortion of what happened

[superwiz]

Except that any organization is as good as most of its member -- not as good the top of its member nor as good as the best of its members. FOR EXAMPLE, (not strawman... EXAMPLE...) you get occasional bad cops, but they don't give a bad name to the police because they are rare. But the double digit percentage of ACORN offices had no second thoughts about advising someone on how to best commit crimes, that's a systemic failure. When organization performs poorly, it doesn't have to be the result of deliberate effort by the individuals at the top. The head bears responsibility even if it simply fails to make the organization better. That's the difference between responsibility and culpability.

Re:This is a distortion of what happened

[WOOFYGOOFY]

You offer one piece of *evidence* an uncited statistic: *double digiits*. Being a good slashdot denizen, of course I tried to confirm or refute this this claim. There is zero evidence that *double digit percentages of employees* engaged in any misconduct or were even interviewed. I wonder where you got that statistic. The full transcripts, number of tapes , minutes of each tape, location of each tape is publicly available because the tapes were turned over to the police as a condition for O'Keefe's immunity from criminal prosecution. What they revealed was that O'Keefe systematically doctored and edited the tapes to produce guilt where there was clearly none. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy Points arising- They did not interview *double digit percentages* of ACORN's lower level employees or employees of any type. O'Keefe was NOT in "pimp garb " as it appears in the video when he was addressing ACORN employees, he was actually in a suit and tie. O'Keefe was sued in court by one of his victims and lost to the tune of $100,000. From the totality of the scam that O'Keefe and Giles ran , I conclude the following. O'Keefe and Giles are classic, textbook sociopaths. http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html Not only did they run the ACRON scam and vicitimize the individual ACORN workers, but they also victimized civil society itself by destroying a wel-respected, law-abiding participant in that society. O'Keefe has admitted the reason he went after ACRON was because they were engaged in voter registration. O'Keefe was arrested at the Capitol for breaking into the telephone exchange there in an apparent attempt to tap the phone lines. Everyone form Forbes to MediaMatters has concluded the same thing about James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles- they're lowlife scammers - http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/08/james-okeefe-pays-100000-to-acorn-employee-he-smeared-conservative-media-yawns/ http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/02/17/james-okeefe-and-the-myth-of-the-acorn-pimp/160485 http://wonkette.com/505026/wonket-sexclusive-totally-blameless-crime-stopper-james-okeefe-to-pay-100000-to-acorn-criminal

Re:This is a distortion of what happened

[superwiz]

You arguing with a point which hasn't been made. The gp said double digit percentage of offices. It did not say double digit percentage of ACORN employees. The rest of defense doesn't hold up for other reasons, but I will not argue about ACORN. They are not the subject of the conversation. They were, once again, AN EXAMPLE OF A LARGER POINT. If you insist of trying to argue about ACORN in order to deflect attention from the current scandals of the Obama administration, have at it. I'll do my best not to fall for the distraction.

Re:This is a distortion of what happened

[WOOFYGOOFY]

1) The IRS is not part of the Obama administration. So your real motives are laid bare- this is going to be ginned up for the conservative base as an Obama scandal.

2) what they were actually doing was something I hear conservatives in favor of all the time- profiling. They were using keywords that scammers do use in order to locate the scammers. In the wake of Citizen's United, the IRS got a fucking flood of fake 501-3-c applications which were nothing but political organizations in disguise. Your lobbying organization is NOT a form of non-profit.

They were profiling applications for the bullshitters. Nothing wrong with that AT ALL. Having a lot of people all trying to break the law in exactly the same way does not make those people a protected minority. Nice try though.

Give those IRS agents a raise.

Re:This is a distortion of what happened

[superwiz]

The IRS is not part of the Obama administration.

They are. They are part of the Treasury Department.

So your real motives are laid bare- this is going to be ginned up for the conservative base as an Obama scandal.

aha

Your lobbying organization is NOT a form of non-profit.

No, they are not. Non-profits are 501(c)3. Lobbying organizations are 501(c)4. So we agree! Congratulations! You said something valid albeit by mistake.

They were profiling applications for the bullshitters. Nothing wrong with that AT ALL

No, there WOULD be nothing wrong IF that were what they were doing. They cast the net too wide. They were profiling essentially by political affiliation. And that is an infringement. Holding a political view that taxes are too high does not suggest that one is more likely to cheat on taxes. Unless, of course, you believe that anyone who is a leftie should not be given a bank loan because they think that stealing from banks evens things out. You don't think that, do you? I mean, banks have an obligation to make the best estimate of who is not likely to pay the loan. They have a legal obligation to make that estimate. So, if you really do believe in this ridiculous extrapolation argument, then you have to accept the flip coin of this argument. And then you have to say that banks MUST charge anyone with a leftist political view a higher interest rate. Well, you only have to do it if you plan on being honest. So, I guess you don't.

Re:This is a distortion of what happened

[WOOFYGOOFY]

The IRS is not part of the Obama administration. They are. They are part of the Treasury Department. Yeah you know that the day to day direction of the IRS is not overseen by any administration. Your assertion amounts to saying the President is the secret instigator of every misdeed or misstep of everyone in every department. I didn't think I had to make that explicit. Guess I didn't know who I was talking to. The fact are, as I said, that the IRS was scanning for scammers using the keywords the scammers themselves chose of their own freewill. It's not the IRS's fault that the tea party is also filled with manipulative liars who seek to illegally claim for themselves tax exempt status. The police have to go to where the criminals are. Maybe thew tea party should spend more time looking at who is in their membership and less time complaining the cops are harassing them.

Re:This is a distortion of what happened

[superwiz]

Your assertion amounts to saying the President is the secret instigator of every misdeed or misstep of everyone in every department.

No, it amounts to saying that the guy in charge is responsible for everything that is done under his command. He is the boss. Unless, of course, you also want to argue that BP was not responsible for the oil spill? It was after all, not the BP corporate that made the decisions which led to it. It was mishaps of some of the lower level guys. Sorry, but if you want the glory of being the top guy in charge, then it is your job to get the right people in the right positions to make sure everything that needs to be done is done. That means the mess in Benghazi is Obama's fault and the IRS targeting political opponents of the Democratic Party is Obama's fault; and the Justice Department listening in on reporters is Obama's fault; and terrorists falling through the cracks are Obama's fault. If he wasn't able to get the right people into the right key positions to get the job done right, it's on him. The buck stops with the President. The standard of responsibility is very high for a high position. If he had the power to prevent it, then not preventing is on him. That's what's called "failing to do you job". The only reason any of Obama's subordinates got a chance to fail on his behalf is that he authorized them to act on his behalf. This goes for every low level employee of the executive branch down to every cleaning lady of every federal building.

The fact are, as I said, that the IRS was scanning for scammers using the keywords the scammers themselves

You did say it. You were factually wrong (as I already explained in gp post).

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[Rockoon]

Yes, because the government conspiracies of the past never looked like or involved profiling...

Are you listening to yourself closely? Try turning it into a proof and you will see that a proof requires that these things to be mutually exclusive, but instead of being mutually exclusive these things nearly universally come in pairs. If you believe that it was profiling, then you also should believe that its likely to be a conspiracy against those profiled. Its the kind of conspiracy that is in question.

Re:Very un-PC

[JackieBrown]

Which rally did you go to?

Re:Very un-PC

[wierd_w]

The misapplication of the adjective (and subsequent dilution of meaning) appears to arise from a lack of an alternative adjective that means "like unto, or relating to the behavior of nations who espouse X".

Compare,
"christian", n., a follower of the teachings of christ, as stated in the new testament.

Vs

"Christian", adj., Like unto, or relating to the christ.

Vs

"Christian", adj., like unto or relating to a group of organized practitioners of reigious ceremonies and philosophies surrounding the christ.

Vs

"Christian", n., a member of such an organized group.

--

This has direct correlations with relating "fascist" (philosophy), with "fascist" (government behaviors), when one sees senences like this:

"Its all those damned christians trying to keep science out of schools!"

What they really mean, is that "christians" (members of organized religion, claiming relationship to christ) are responsible, and not "christians" (followers of the doctrnes laid out in the new testament by the christ.) Or "christians", (people like unto the christ.)

There isn't a seperate word. Thus, the miscommunicaton is impossble to prevent, until such a word is coined, and subsequently adopted.

Complaining about the dilution does not solve the dilution, when no alternative to the dilution exists.

Please provide a suitable alternatie for the word "fascist" in the preceeding postings as a correction instead.

And yet you vote Democrat

[SuperKendall]

I, for one, would have more sympathy for conservatives if they didn't keep trying to take away important civil liberties

You mean like trying to take away our ability to choose what food and drink we can eat?

Or the simple ability to keep and use firearms?

I'm a little confused why I have not seen you posting before about civil liberties when so many are under attack. Oh, that's right, you prefer to give one side an all-excuse pass for removing liberties.

It's time people stopped supporting "sides" and started supporting PEOPLE.

Totally Correct.

[SuperKendall]

he real problem is that the US has completely lost sight of what "Left wing" and "Right wing" or "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean. Hell, you're applying political labels to a non-political sporting event: how is that rational?

It's sad you can so clearly see from afar what so many here cannot, and more importantly WILL NOT. No matter how much you try to point that out...

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[DaHat]

Of course any lawbreaking should not be tolerated.

Glad we can agree on something. In that case... do you support the idea of the president resigning from office over his unconstitutional NLRB appointments?

We may be getting into semantics here.

It's only semantics if you choose to limit the size of the dictionary you are using... and from your posts here it's clear you've got one that's only about 30 pages long.

But the implication of "persecution" here is that Obama/ The Government was mad at the tea partiers, and sicced the IRS on them to make the Tea partiers lives miserable.

You are free to draw that conclusion... that is not however what is being alleged (even though the Pres did in 09 joke about sic'ing the IRS on his opponents).

Your assumption is that because some low level person does something... that an order was passed down, person to person from top to bottom to do something... that is rarely the case.

Instead the senior folks set some broad policies... and leave it to those below to come up with more specific aspects... this process repeats until the final linemen down below who do what they are told.

Quite often though... environments are created where people at various levels are permitted a good degree of latitude to do their work (think cops who can choose to give you a ticket or not for speeding). In environments where policy is not rigiourly enforced and violators not punished... it's easy for people (at any level) to go off and do their own things... be it looking up peoples passport records or drivers licenses without permission... or choosing who to initiate an audit against for political reasons.

Did you ever look up the definition of 'persecution'? Bing tells me:

Definition of persecute (vt)
persecute

  [ púrss kyt ]
1.oppress people: to systematically subject a race or group of people to cruel or unfair treatment, e.g. because of their ethnic origin or religious beliefs
2.pester somebody: to make somebody the victim of continual pestering or harassment

Seems rather apt... doesn't it? Some low level employee took it upon themselves to systematically subject groups they didn't approve of to a form of legal harassment utilizing the tools at their disposal to bring down the force of the government upon them.

If you don't think that's persecution... then it's clear you need to go up stairs and ask mommy & daddy to buy you a new dictionary as the one you've been reading (if at all) is quite inaccurate.

Worse yet... if we believe reports that say that the person(s) responsible for this will not be punished... it sends signs through the organization that such misbehavior WILL BE TOLERATED... and will then likely happen in future.

Re: Very un-PC

[wierd_w]

(And I apparently suck at math! 5 to 6 years ago. My bad.)

Damaging how?

[SuperKendall]

This is very damaging to the IRS.

The IRS has grown beyond needing or wanting to care about reputation.

Witness that non-one is even going to be fired over this. If it were a lessor organization the leader would be fired, never mind the supposed "underlings". They can't even be bothered to pull up a scapegoat.

So how is it damaging exactly? The IRS will get to keep on doing whatever it likes.

Re:Damaging how?

[Karmashock]

That actually isn't that impressive. How many pedophiles have remained on public school pay rolls?

As to why no one is being disciplined... look what happened with fast and furious.

I'm guessing the reason no one is being disciplined here has more to do with the people actually responsible being higher up on the food chain then they want to admit. They say "its only small people... pay no attention" and then hope it all goes away. If the congressional investigation gets anywhere with its probe then we might get more interesting revelations.

Whether the probes will succeed is anyone's guess. The executive branch seems immune to oversight and shameless at claiming national security privilege every time they want something to go away.

Re:Damaging how?

[khallow]

So how is it damaging exactly? The IRS will get to keep on doing whatever it likes.

Well, for starters by keeping the IRS from doing whatever it likes.

If it were a lessor organization the leader would be fired, never mind the supposed "underlings".

We'll probably see someone resign over it. But fired? That's extremely rare.

They can do one thing

[SuperKendall]

they can't be everyplace, looking over everybody's shoulder all of the time. They can only do so much

Shouldn't just one of those things being to listen when a large number of like minded groups are all claiming the IRS is harassing them?

This story is over a YEAR old, and we only hear about it now from the IRS because they let it slip out (they didn't even mean to talk about it).

Re:They can do one thing

[techno-vampire]

Shouldn't just one of those things being to listen when a large number of like minded groups are all claiming the IRS is harassing them?

Yes, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that that's how they found out what was happening. If so, the next question is why didn't they look into what was going on sooner.

Clinton's back

[superwiz]

Clinton's recipe for ending a political scandal: start another scandal. Shut up about Benghazi! Look, we set IRS on the Tea Party! Talk about that.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[cold fjord]

Certainly. But if police pull over cars with "Weed is awesome!" stickers more often than "DARE to keep kids of drugs stickers", would you really be surprised?

To stick with the car analogy .... this wasn't the police pulling over the car because of a sticker advocating a law change. This was the Department of Motor Vehicles refusing to issue license plates until you provide lists of everyone that will ride in the car, where they are employed, if any of them are planning to run for office to change the traffic laws, and an itinerary of where you plan to drive in the next year, and a slip signed by the chief of police saying it is ok to let you have license plates. All because of the name of your group . . . and the fact that you oppose the current (administration) "traffic laws."

Read it and weep. (Bottom paragraph, page 1 of article.)

What was that Ben Franklin said? A republic, if we can keep it? I think someone is putting grease on the handles.

Re: Very un-PC

[JWW]

Yet your guy has a list of names of people he want to kill with drones, often times in countries we are not at war with. Sometimes they're American citizens.

I agree that Bush did bad things and ratcheted back our freedoms. But Obama just got in there and EXPANDED the ratcheting back of more of our freedoms. Except you just cheer him on because he's your guy.

You have a blind hatred of Bush and a blind love of Obama. Your blind to the continual increase of the governments power over us because you've been duped into thinking this is a sporting event with two opposing teams.

Blind assholes like you and like those on the other "side" are costing us our liberty.

Fuck you.

Re:Very un-PC

[Bartles]

Despise everything completely, not. Got it. Thanks.

Re:Very un-PC

[Lakitu]

are you kidding?

A government institution paying special attention to political organizations based on their supposed affiliations is, to quote our vice president, a big fucking deal.

Re: Very un-PC

[DaHat]

I stopped reading what you said when I got to where you said:

when it is the right taking away equal pay for women

Are you familiar with Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Obviously not... as it does noting to guarantee equal pay for women... instead it simply extends the amount of time someone has to bring a claim of discrimination related to their pay.

Or is there some other legislation being held up by the evil Republicans which would bring pay equality between men and women? Shame the White House doesn't adopt it on their own.

Of course people like you (and the president) gloss over why men tend to make more than women.

I'll tell you two quick reasons:

1. Men tend to pursue degrees/programs/work that pays higher (ie Computer Science vs Elementary Education had a 95/5 distribution at my college... 95% of students in CS classes were men... while 95% of students in Ed classes were women... and still the school graduated equal numbers from both programs).

2. While a man's career tends to remain on a relatively constant trajectory, many women's do not because of children... either because of leaving a job to be a stay at home parent, or working in a (usually part time) job that has more flexible hours (which usually means lower pay).

Now... if you want to propose legislation that mandates that employers count a year or ten spent raising a child or two as relevant work experience... and make sure that every elementary ed teacher (more often than not women) are paid as much as software developers (more often than not men)... then go for it... until then, it's remarkably shortsighted of you to speak of things you clearly do not understand.

I'd read more of your rant... but when you are so wrong on something like this so early... is there any reason for me to waste anymore of my time?

Re:Very un-PC

[Bartles]

Take a look at some of the demands for information that the IRS issued to these groups, then come back here and say you still believe that.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[cold fjord]

The IRS has already admitted what they did was wrong. Your sense of this is faulty.

I think if you read this you'll see that this is way beyond inappropriate.

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

No, I disagree that the presence of profiling requires the presence of a conspiracy. A conspiracy requires secretive group planning with malicious intent, by definition. And other cases of profiling don't have this - cops all across the country don't have to get together and plan to pull over kids who look like stoners. Nor do the TSA or others have to get together and collude to be immediately suspicious of Muslims.

Please note that I'm not referring to the fairness or even the usefulness of profiling. All I'm saying is, this looks like profiling to me - and profiling is not at all dependent on conspiracy.

Re:Very un-PC

[Alsee]

yet groups like Organizing for America and MoveOn.org remain unmolested... funny that?

Ummm, could that possibly.... just maybe.... have something to do with the fact that Organizing for America didn't file as a non-profit? Ya think?

As for "MoveOn.org", maybe.... just maybe, that has something to do with the fact thatMoveOn.org Political Action doesn't file as non-profit? Or perhaps you meant MoveOn.org Civic Action, which is indeed filed as non-profit. MoveOn.org Civic Action has very directly addresses the legal issue of what non-profits are and aren't allowed to do, and they've established an easy and effective relief-valve against pressures to cross that line. If someone wants to donate money to promote candidates, MoveOn.org Civic Action has no hesitation to suggest the money be donated to MoveOn.org Political Action instead. And if someone at MoveOn.org Civic Action has some idea/motivation to engage in candidate advocacy, there's no problem sending the idea (or the motivated person) over to MoveOn.org Political Action to deal with it.

It's a lot harder to remain within the bounds of non-profit legal limits when you don't have that sort of big organizational structure carefully drawing the line of what is and isn't allowed by non-profits, and when you don't have organizational structure in place to easily and effectively vent the inevitable pressures to exceed non-profit limits.

-

Re:Very un-PC

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

In this specific case? Statists would have worked, without even changing the grammar of the sentence.

Re: Very un-PC

[danbuter]

Liberal Republicans do not win elections. Sadly, the idiots in DC can't figure this out.

Re: Very un-PC

[danbuter]

The news media does, though. And since the news media drives political opinion more than any other source...

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

That article paints a much more complex picture than the factoid you pulled from it.

Re:Very un-PC

[Alsee]

There is a Catholic joke in here somewhere.

Ok....
MoveOn are a bunch of godless atheists destroying America, so of course they're not getting molested.

-

Re: Very un-PC

[Lord Kano]

The fact that minorities fared much worse under Obama than they did under Bush, before going on to re-elect him with record turn out indicates that a lot of them voted primarily upon his race.

It wasn't about his performance. It was about the color of his skin.

I don't know anything about you. I am black. I have seen it with my own eyes. Black Americans have a love and devotion for Barack Obama that I have never seen with any other public figure. It's because he's black.

LK

Re: Very un-PC

[Lord Kano]

I think 90% of black children are in unwed single parent households now for example

70% of black children are born out of wedlock but that also includes children born to co-habitating unwed parents.

LK

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Glad we can agree on something. In that case... do you support the idea of the president resigning from office over his unconstitutional NLRB appointments

I support the President resigning for any reason he wishes. : ) but if you mean, do I think he should be forced from office, no. Just as I don't think GWB should have been forced for office for his (successful) attempts to use recess appointments when he felt thwarted. Or for any of the other things that Bush tried to do, where the SCOTUS ruled against him. The SCOTUS ruled, the appointments were voided, that's that. I will say that the GOP congress is very much operating to the letter of the law and not the spirit - they are doing whatever they can to keep a legitimate government agency unstaffed and crippled because they don't like what it does, but they can't muster the votes to get rid of it. That's slimy, but that's within their rights to do.

You are free to draw that conclusion... that is not however what is being alleged (even though the Pres did in 09 joke about sic'ing the IRS on his opponents)

Ok, well that seemed to me the very clear implication of the article that I'm responding to. And judging by the many responders to my comment, both for and against, it's clear I was not alone in that interpretation. But if so, great.

1.oppress people: to systematically subject a race or group of people to cruel or unfair treatment, e.g. because of their ethnic origin or religious beliefs 2.pester somebody: to make somebody the victim of continual pestering or harassment Seems rather apt... doesn't it?

That hinges on a) whether or not you consider profiling to be intrinsically unfair, or b) whether in this case it was so extreme that it's more unfair than other profiling that you agree with. Personally I think a better case can be made for a) - which I must say I have not found to be the position of most conservatives, at least until now.

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[White Flame]

You talk about a single right-wing channel among dozens to hundreds of other channels who fall in some non-conservative spectrum (super-left to moderate). That's pointless.

However, both the far right and far left are evil. Evils of the far right should not incur the promotion of the evils of the far left.

Re: Very un-PC

[Lord Kano]

It drives me nuts to have racist right-wingers attempt justify their views by bringing up left-leaning figures like MLK, as if that somehow makes their point credible.

Dr. King was a Republican.

We don't have to have a news channel dedicated to spreading lies and misinformation.

Your local provider must not carry MSNBC.

We don't try to impeach YOUR shitty President for massive crimes when you've worked tirelessly to impeach ours over blowjobs.

Repeating this lie doesn't make it any more true. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. He was being deposed in a sexual harassment lawsuit, HE LIED UNDER OATH, he suggested to other people that they lie under oath and he engaged in intimidation of witnesses.

LK

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jcr]

do you support the idea of the president resigning from office over his unconstitutional NLRB appointments?

I'd rather see him doing time for the civil rights violations that the DEA is committing on his watch.

-jcr

Re:Very un-PC

[aztracker1]

Perhaps you could name a few of these "Big Causes" that aren't meant to "lead (or intend) to be mostly legislative lobbying" ?

Re: Very un-PC

[aztracker1]

Funny, but I've known quite a few black racists who I am sure were more than fine with Obama.

Re: Very un-PC

[Nova Express]

And where, pray tell, were all those liberal groups receiving spite audits and having their tax exempt status held up?

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[amiga3D]

I don't have Mitt Romney's accountants. Between Fed, State, Sales, and 3 or 4 dozen miscellaneous hidden taxes I pay over half. Most people have no idea how much tax they pay. Every gallon of gas has tax added. Tires have excise tax. The list goes on and on and on. It's fucking ridiculous. Every damn thing I buy has 8 cents sales per dollar. That's 8 percent right there. Then there is Property tax. But the Feds tax the biggest single bite. My phone bill has a tax on it, they call it a fee, so that Indians on reservations can have internet. It's only about 50 cents per month but shit there is so much of that kind of crap. I wondered what the hell that fee was and it took 2 hours on the phone to actually find out. That's not a fee, that is a tax renamed to hide it from you. Seriously I know we have to have taxes to fund infrastructure and provide for services and such but all the slimy crap they hide in this bill and that adds up to a lot of money for a lot of bullshit.

Re:...except, again...

[cirby]

The various Tea Party groups that were being harassed by the IRS were being targeted by offices across the country, and it went on well after the story was made public. It's still going on, to some degree - out of 27 known groups, twelve of them are still in a holding pattern due to this harassment.

The "it was low level employees" bit is pretty much just a plain old lie. The amount of paperwork and long, detailed forms that were generated pretty much guaranteed that someone in at least middle management was organizing the effort. The similarity of questionnaires from multiple offices shows a pretty high level of coordination.

"I've always applauded this logic; quote a comment an official makes that aligns with your views, dismiss the comments they make that don't."

There's a huge difference between "official admits their offices did something stupid" and "official admits their offices did something stupid and shoves the blame off on some unnamed flunky." The important part is the damning admission, not the qualifier.

The big question is "why did the IRS suddenly admit this?" They were in full denial for most of the last year - what happened to make them suddenly decide to come clean? Are they looking at the Benghazi whistleblowers and worrying that someone in the IRS might get inspired?

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[khallow]

And I think Obama would have to be pretty stupid to put that on tape after what happened to Nixon.

Social welfare covers a lot of ground

[cirby]

Look up some of the questionnaires the IRS put together ONLY for the Tea Party groups. They were asking things like "how much money do you plan to take in, four years in the future?" No, that's not a standard question for 501 groups of any sort.

They also asked for a full list of board members, and all of their family members who might have served on the boards of other organizations, along with any family members who "was, is, or plans to be running for public office."

They also asked for all contacts the groups had made with the press, including op-eds, interviews, and letters to the editor. That part alone should have sent the civil libertarians screaming for the hills.

They wanted full records of any rallies the groups had held - including expenses, income, and "copies of all materials with regards to the event."

A 501(c)(4) organization qualifies as a "social welfare" group if they're arguing for something they believe will improve society. That's it. The (c)(4) part is actually more restrictive than a lot of other types - except for the donation reporting requirements, and the lack of tax-deductible status for a lot of those donations. Yes, the Tea Party groups took the avenue that causes their members to pay MORE taxes in the long run...

Use the fucking dictionary

[dbIII]

This "personal definition" weasel word shit is the problem. IMHO the above poster SuperKendoll is pretending that something is not a social issue when common usage of English says it is, they are trying to weasel out of something by setting a special meaning of words limited to a single conversation.
Once "relativism" comes up and you have to ask people what their personal definition of things is then reason has completely left the building and it's just a childish game instead of communication.

Re:Use the fucking dictionary

[stenvar]

This "personal definition" weasel word shit is the problem. IMHO the above poster SuperKendoll is pretending that something is not a social issue when common usage of English says it is

Minimum wage is neither "fiscal" nor "social", it's an economic issue, and economics is quite clear about it: it's a bad idea if you care about the general welfare of society and want to help the working poor. Minimum wage only becomes a "social issue" in that passing it will prevent lots of people from getting a first job and for lots of businesses to substitute automation for labor, thereby leading to lots of social problems down the road.

Re:Use the fucking dictionary

[dbIII]

Perhaps the subject line was too subtle and escaped your notice.

Re:Use the fucking dictionary

[stenvar]

Perhaps you should use a dictionary some time yourself? Then perhaps you'd understand what I'm saying.

Re:Use the fucking dictionary

[dbIII]

Considering you've added your own weasel petty definitions directly below a post about such matters I really do not think you are in a place to call others to task about their reading comprehension skills. Yes I know some cocaine addled former DJ behaves the same way on TV, but I'm sure you don't have the drug history to excuse such stupidity yourself.

Re:Use the fucking dictionary

[Richy_T]

It's true that most libertarians regard government provided social services as both a fiscal and social disaster but it's mostly the fiscal aspect that's at issue. If people were to want to provide social support and it was at no cost to the taxpayer, most would be just fine with that. Oh wait, we had that. It's called charity. Shame the government is doing its best to undermine it.

Re:um...

[khallow]

Second, Obama has put the IRS in charge of overseeing your participation in Obamacare...

Congress did that. Obama just signed the resulting law. The thing is that Obama is fundamentally responsible for these activities. He needs to at least remove those responsible. If I were in charge, I'd go further and pursue criminal charges, but that's not something the Obama administration has ever been inclined to do.

Generalize much?

[AmazingRuss]

The left said all this in unison, with their hands over their hearts?

Re:Generalize much?

[wierd_w]

Specious argument is specious.

The right didn't come out and say "obama's black, therefore I hate him!" In unison either.

It does NOT take a unified front. A few bad apples spoil the bunch.

Re:Generalize much?

[AmazingRuss]

Tautological retort is tautological.

You could have just said yes and saved some words.

Re:Generalize much?

[wierd_w]

To be fair, however, and in deference to the "racism" slurs:

Giving preferentia treatment to a person because of race, is the defining characteristic of racism. Because the MSM did *NOT* go against the "OMG! A black president! Oh joy of joys! Hallelujah, praise jesus!" Line, and do the race neutral thing ("why does his skin color matter?"), and even played *UP* the "Historic black president!" Mantra, they were actively engaging in institutionalized racism, defacto.

So, the "racist much brah?" Line of the era was flat out offensive to begin with.

(My .02$)

Re:Generalize much?

[wierd_w]

Saying "yes" is wrong, because they didn't all do that.

I said the argument was specious, because unified grandstanding is not required for "the left did this" to be true.

The same with the repubs being racists. Not all were. Some were. Some were outspokenly so. So, the repubs *were* racist. Just not all of them. It didn't take all of them to be. THAT was the point.

It isn't paranoia when they really are...

[sylvandb]

Always love your country -- but never trust your government! ... A government that can give you everything can take everything away.
    --Robert Novak, the Prince of Darkness, 1931-2009

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[kenh]

Obama's AG wouldn't see a financial crime if it jumped up and down in front of him.

At MF Global Jon Corzine *literally* stole client money to cover his own company's underwater trading positions, and no charges were filed.

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[kenh]

Nixon was going to be impeached for using the IRS to target his political enemies... Lucky thing for Obama some nameless, blameless low-level employee did this!

Re:Very un-PC

[cold fjord]

I find your comments delightfully uninformed. Even though it is still early in this scandal, there are some troubling things already known. You did notice what the IRS itself is saying, didn't you? From the original story, "'That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review . . . '"

You do know that one group was subjected to this treatment for three years, only being approved after the election? Try reading the last paragraph on page 1 of the article, then get back to me.

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

I have no doubt there will be more revelations to come on this. Congress is taking an interest.

Re:Very un-PC

[bongey]

"How remarkably topsy-turvy your universe is." These is going to be nothing but ad hominens but sometimes people just really need to be put in there place. I would have to bash my head against a wall over, and over and over and over and over and over and over, and you guessed some more head banging until I was practically brain dead to understand your point. For you logic is abosulty , without a doubt abosulte bullshit. I am raising the bullshit flag high and proud. Did you even read the news story? Or is reading ADN comprehension something that you struggle with . Finally did you even read the article , the IRS lawyer said that what the did was wrong. ( I smell lawsuits in the future. ) Finally I did find your baseball , stop by to pick it up.

Teabaggers hate the IRS, wish to destroy USA

[jsepeta]

If the Teabaggers are calling to eliminate taxes and destroy the USA to "save us from big government", then maybe some big government SHOULD be investigating those self-righteous dummies. They're practically a terrorist organization anyway.

Re:Terrorists deserve investigation

[jsepeta]

let us know when the left has some extremists. what fox calls "left" is really centrist.

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[cold fjord]

It's not Nixonian until you come up with the tape of Obama telling his aides to sic the IRS on the people on his enemies list.

The question of Nixon's tapes didn't come up until investigators came looking for them. The real investigations haven't started on this. . . yet. And it needn't take a tape to be Nixonian. The key is the intent and activity, not the recording medium.

The Obama Campaign's Nixonian "White House Enemies List"

The Obama campaign is now marshaling the power of the office of the presidency against private citizens — using the Obama campaign’s “Truth Team” to target individual Romney donors and supporters in a way that is alarmingly reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s “Enemies List” — as documented in a May 10th piece by the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel.

Obama's Enemies List
Strassel: Obama's Enemies List—Part II

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[tftp]

I actually have no stickers on my car. I don't want any lawmen to give me roadside political training. My car is nearly identical to millions of others, just like it. Even the color is typical. I cannot imagine how I can benefit from being recognized and remembered. (For details, see that lecture "Never talk to the police" - the lawyer explains how that can ruin your day.)

Re: Very un-PC

[Alsee]

On, and as for the whole marriage thing, you can't conclude causality in the fact that few interracial couples exist...
You point to few interracial couples as proof of prejudice but so what?

Howdy howdy heay there! Thanks your your reply!
If you look back at my post you might notice I wasn't talking about there being "few interracial couples" as some indication of racism. I was talking about brain damaged sub-human scum who voted for interracial marriage to be FUCKING ILLEGAL ya moron. The sooner the racist asshats drop dead the better. Have a nice day :)

-

Re:Very un-PC

[ArchieBunker]

Probably the one I was at. But yea he has a valid point. The Republicans from the 1990s are nothing like the so called Republicans today. They don't spend less and they don't try and make the government any smaller. They don't stand for personal freedom or privacy unless it has anything to do with guns.

Re:So...

[Aonghus142000]

Yes, you are. If a group is flagged for review by the IRS Based on their beliefs , even if that belief is something as noxious as buggering farm animals on the courthouse steps, there is a problem.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

No, that doesn't fit the analogy. It would be more like a company saying they don't believe the DMV has the right to say whether or not people can drive, and then the same company applying for a set of commercial driving licenses for a fleet, and the DMV making extra sure that they had fully documented drivers.

I.e. not a great thing for the DMV to do, but more likely as profiling than as some sort of punitive task.

Re:You are really bringing out big guns for an aud

[tftp]

You are right that all citizens are in danger of the IRS looking at their financial records - but so what?

Godwin is applicable here because all tyrants begin with small, soft steps. They make things difficult for their opponents. Stalin, for example, destroyed NEP by raising taxes until having a business became a money-losing proposition. Stalin's counterpart in that period of time was also busy, for about a decade, with slowly changing the society to suit his grandiose plans.

The actions of IRS here indicate that their leadership received very specific marching orders to suppress or intimidate the legitimate political opposition. We associate these actions with dictatorships - and certainly such a country has no freedom of opinion, speech, or association; what it has instead is secret police. This time the role of that police was played by IRS - but the interrogation that they unleashed is fitting the police, not a tax collection agency.

Re:Very un-PC

[Cederic]

There is an easy option: Remove tax exemption from the abusive businesses.

(Yes, I do mean the religious organisations. My hobbies hurt nobody and still get taxed, so their profit making abusive hobbies definitely should)

Re: Very un-PC

[Alsee]

Except the vast majority of black racists, to whom Obama can do no evil, and no white candidate no matter how virtuous and capable of leadership could ever be considered, so long as a black man is running.

There's itty-bitty little detail you overlooked, in your rant about "black racists" voting for Obama just because he's black, and against the "virtuous and capable of leadership" of his opponent merely because he was white. The one itty-bitty detail you overlooked is that, even with the historic first African American running for president, the percentages on the African American vote hardly budged. The fact is that African Americans voted as they did because almost 100% of them vote Democratic, have been voting that way for decades, and have been doing so for good reason.

And to avoid redundant posts, this reply also goes out to the multitude of other Anonymous Cowards who also posted whinging about (paraphrase) "those damn racist blacks" who all voted for Obama "just because he's black".

-

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Oh, come on now. You really want me to go this degree, to demonstrate something I'm sure we both are reasonably sure about? OK.

Here's a list of US political parties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

The Tea Party isn't on it, but the libertarian party and other parties are.

Here's the estimated size of people who consider themselves to be in the Tea Party, according to the Tea Party: 8.9 million people. And at least 1.7 million attended Glenn Beck's rally. So just in case the Tea Party site is inflating it's own figures, I'll split the different at say 5 million. If you have other estimates you'd prefer, then please post your own. http://teapartyorg.ning.com/page/tea-party-groups

Here's the Tea Party platform. Again, if you know other info then you post it. Note that # 1 is "eliminate excessive taxes". http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

I just looked at the pages information for each of the other parties listed. Not one has the Tea Party's 4 million members. The closest is the Libertarian party; they cast 1.7 million votes in 2012 for Gary Johnson. So, let's generously double that to 3.4 million members. They mention taxes 9th in their platform. So, they still have fewer members and less of a focus on taxes. The next largest, the Green Party, has 500,000 members and no mention of taxes. The 5th, the Constitution party, had 125,000 presidential votes. Double that to 250,000 and that's nowhere near the Tea Party's size. Now, the Constitution party does appear to have quite a focus on taxes. But they are, at their highest estimation, much less than half the Tea Party's size.

So, there you have it. My statement stands: the Tea Party is far more anti-tax than any party that is even close to their size. Which, by the way, I remain convinced you were aware of but for some reason you were attempting to deny.

If you disagree, please prove that some other group is angrier about taxes and is more driven to reduce taxes than the Tea Party, by showing a) more members and b) more virulence in their platform. Or, come up with some other way to prove me wrong.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

I'm not saying it was right. Once again, I'm saying that this seems to me to be profiling and not persecution. Saying something was assault and not murder doesn't mean I'm saying assault is awesome.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Here's a simpler answer: The Tea Party's initials are supposed to be "Taxed Enough Already".

What other US political group has anagrams of it's initials that mention taxes?

I eagerly await your response.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[ttucker]

It was either a conspiracy, or perpetrated by a single person.

Furthermore, whoever they claim is solely responsible, or whatever small supposedly unsanctioned group of employees they are blaming, are class-a patsies. They are fall men. Someone told them to do it, and they did it, but with plausible deniability.

You are just apologizing for, and giving a glory hole treatment to... the IRS.

Are you going to apologize for the State Department too? They just couldn't read the reports right, and by the time they had to do something, they couldn't without admitting their error... being the Secretary of State is HARD!

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

... many things can be gleamed... such as the fact that you are not a lawyer... and probably not very good at whatever job you do

By the immediacy with which you sink to personal insult rather than argument, it can be easily presumed that you aren't a lawyer either. If you do plan on becoming one, you would do well to remove that arrow from your quiver right away. It does not impress. But hey, your life, do what you will.

You know... a black person is more likely to be convicted and sentenced to jail for a drug crime than a white... by your logic... or as you would say "and thus"... wouldn't any randomly selected black person be more likely to be engaged in the drug trade than a white "and thus" be fair game for further scrutiny?

By the logic of profiling, absolutely. Which also proves that profiling is something done by individuals, and not as a planned conspiracy let alone one requiring top-down orders. Nor does it even require a personal animosity towards the targeted - all it requires is an assumption - which can be right or wrong - that the target is more likely to be breaking the law.

So, thank you for proving my own point, that the profiling by the IRS did not require some sort of top-down orders OR personal animosity towards Tea Partiers and other conservative anti-Tax groups to happen. : )

You do seem to have some aspect of my entire argument misconstrued. In no way am I saying this profiling was awesome, enlightened or even something that I approve of. What I was, and am, saying is that this sort of profiling was based on assumptions that I can see the IRS coming to - and, once again, assumptions that didn't require any basis either in orders from the top or animosity towards the Tea Party.

And it seems to me that the only fair AND logical position is either no groups are profiled, or any group can be profiled. So if you don't like the idea of Tea Partiers being profiled, then you need to be against Muslims being profiled too.

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[ArcherB]

Well someone sic'ed the IRS on Obama's enemies list. Tell me, who's in charge of the IRS? Where does the buck stop?

Re:Very un-PC

[Score Whore]

They weren't investigating their current status. These groups were applying for tax exempt status and the IRS was putting substantial hurdles in the way of select groups and demanding excessive information about said groups. And it had real and meaningful effects on their ability to operate. For example, during the application period the groups had to operate as if they were tax exempt and were thus prevented from engaging in certain kinds of advocacy and speech while in the mean time having to pay taxes. If in the end they were denied tax exempt status then they had just lost months of opportunity to participate in the political process. Additionally, having their application process extended interfered with their ability to raise funds. Several groups dropped out of the process because of the chilling effects of the information demanded by the IRS. Those groups had their ability to get their message out impaired as compared with competing organizations because on a donated dollar-for-dollar basis their non-exempt status cost them around 20% in total operating funds even though they fully qualified to be tax exempt.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[ArcherB]

This doesn't seem to be politically motivated, it just seems like common sense.

If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes?

Is it really that crazy for the IRS to look at people who claim to hate taxes, as having a higher likelihood of being tax dodgers?

How does "Patriot" make you think of tax dodgers?

Also, if the IRS were looking for tax dodgers, they wouldn't have been asking for information like family member names and their political affiliation. This was not about taxes. This was about shutting down conservative groups until AFTER the election. This was a delaying tactic, not an audit. I should also add that NONE of the targeted groups, over 300 lost their tax exempt status.

From The AP:

Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.

The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members. ...
Zawistowski's group was among many conservative organizations that battled the IRS over what they saw as discriminatory treatment. The group first applied for nonprofit status in June 2009, and it was finally granted on Dec. 7, 2012, he said — one month after Election Day.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[ArcherB]

If TEA Party members and people who belong to groups with "Patriot" in the name were statistically more apt to apply for tax exempt status where it is not justified, then you would have a point. So you can't claim profiling. Remember, this was not an audit. This was an application for tax exempt status, all of which were granted, by the way, AFTER THE ELECTION. Hell, the IRS didn't even follow their own guidelines:

IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

See, these groups can't operate until they receive the blessing from the IRS. What the IRS did was use the power of the federal government to effectively shut down political opposition until after Obama's reelection.

Re: Very un-PC

[sociocapitalist]

Well said!

It is rather sad when many leftists simply write off opponents to the President as racists of some sort... as it does indicate what kind of issues they themselves have with race if that is the first thing that comes to mind.

MLK said:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character

And yet to the left... it is the color of ones skin, what sort of genitals one has, or what kind of genitals they prefer on the person they are with that is more important than the content of their character.

Whereas you probably preferred an ignorant former alcoholic puppet who couldn't react well in emergencies and an equally ignorant schizophrenic religious nutcase who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant out of wedlock and divorcing a year after the shotgun wedding.

Yes, much better judges of character indeed, you right wingers.

Re:You are really bringing out big guns for an aud

[dbIII]

but the interrogation that they unleashed is fitting the police

So they are locking people up in cells until it's time to question them? No? We'll you'd better try again hadn't you without such ridiculous hype or you'll just keep on sounding like a child's tantrum.

Re: Very un-PC

[Alsee]

Are you sure about that?

Yep.

"According to CNN exit polls, 93% of African-Americans, 71% of Hispanics and 73% of Asians supported Obama over Romney."

No, the supported the Democrat over the Republican. And you can confirm that by looking at the 2004 and previous elections where minorities supported the white Democrat over the white Republican by almost exact same margins. Racists are not exactly inclined to join the Democratic party because that's where all the "brown people" are, and minorities are not exactly inclined to join the Republican party because that's where all the bigots are. It's a self-reinforcing cycle. The fact that the Democrats ran a black candidate for president hardly budged any of the percentages. Few racists were going to vote Dem no matter who ran, and few minorities were going to vote Repub no matter who ran.

-

wrong

[stenvar]

The law forbids non-profits from having a political goal.

That's false. Nonprofits may not conduct political campaign activities, support or oppose political candidates, or intervene in elections. But they most certainly may have political goals, and many of them do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)

Re: Very un-PC

[flyneye]

Wouldn't it be a better strategy to do something unexpected, like target Moose Lodge members?
Everyone kind of expects retarded assaults on religion or race, but no one expects a burning effigy of a Shriner.
Keep 'em guessing

Re: Very un-PC

[Livius]

Not everyone, but a lot of people - racist and reverse racist alike - had opinions that were race-based.

Re: Very un-PC

[BonThomme]

well played. well played.

Re: Very un-PC

[BonThomme]

and despite the stock market reaching new highs, wealthy white people still have a loathing and disdain for him.

Re: Very un-PC

[BonThomme]

"It drives me nuts to have racist right-wingers attempt justify their views by bringing up left-leaning figures like MLK, as if that somehow makes their point credible."

well, they bring up jesus a lot, too, and it's not like they listen to him either.

Re: Very un-PC

[BonThomme]

at least his list has individuals and not entire countries on it.

Re: Very un-PC

[BonThomme]

a lot more than just "they"

Re: Very un-PC

[BonThomme]

look at where the economy was in the Fall of 2008.

look at it now.

Republicans, it would seem, have no sense at all.

Re: Very un-PC

[BonThomme]

"Liberal Republicans"

this is not the adjective you're looking for...

Re: Very un-PC

[BonThomme]

"He got a bad economy and Made it worse with spending. "

stock markets at record highs
housing market recovering
unemployment consistently down (when Republicans are in office, 5% is considered "full employment")

comparing this to an economy that seized up and nearly fell into depression in 2008, and it's somehow "worse"?

Re: Very un-PC

[BonThomme]

but he 'kept us safe'! and gave us 'free speech areas'! and there was a 'mission accomplished banner' so he must've done something else, too!

Re:Very un-PC

[BonThomme]

FOX News, we decide, you report.

Re:Very un-PC

[BonThomme]

so they should spend their time on people who don't need their service?

Re:Very un-PC

[sithkhan]

I'm a conservative who was once very hopeful that the Tea Party might help turn around the Republican Party (which is more about expanding the government and the debt than anything else). Then I went to a Tea Party rally, where I got to hear all about how it's the duty of all Americans to NOT pay taxes, and how the niggers are taking over. So yeah, audit them. All of them.

Care to share the date, time, and location of those Tea Party rallies where they stated "niggers are taking over?" If it is so commonplace, how has it never been caught on film, audio track, or digital media?

Re:Very un-PC

[BonThomme]

oh, no. not Congress

Re:Very un-PC

[JenovaSynthesis]

Do you have any proof that MoveOn and company were doing anything wrong? The Right Wing in this country has already proven they cannot play by the rules and break them constantly. And Right-wing groups spring up in this nation about as fast as Koch & Co can write checks to protect their precious trust-funds.

For all those saying this is no big deal....

[Aonghus142000]

I would call your attention to the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon, specifically Article II, Section 1. For further information, please see the letter from Rep. Darrell Issa (Admittedly, a bit a a partisan firebrand) to Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the head of this controversy dated 27 March, 2011. I would particularly call your attention to the list of demands that begin on page 2.

It seems possible that this is all what Ms. Lerner is claiming, the actions of a few low level employees seeking a way to streamline an admittedly arduous process, but if so, it demonstrates a level of political tone deafness so high as to boggle the mind.

The upshot is that something here stinks. Particularly given that President Obama has made jokes about auditing those he is unhappy with. This needs to be investigated, and investigated NOW.

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[BonThomme]

well, with a name like "americanthinker"...

Re: Very un-PC

[ganjadude]

Instead, you dismiss it by blaming it on them being racist. That way you don't need responsibility.

kind of like how anyone who disagrees with the president is labeled a racist... yeah, exactly...

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[BonThomme]

(overseen by an incompetent Republican figurehead)

it's genius, really.

Re: Very un-PC

[ganjadude]

obama didnt do shit up here when sandy hit last year, it was bloomberg and christie who took care of us.

bush fucked up as president, alot but obama makes him look like a saint.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[BonThomme]

I live in Cali. Very successful. Nowhere close to half my gross.

Re:Very un-PC

[ganjadude]

exactly. I remember a 100,000$ offer to anyone who could prove that the black congressman was spit on (since it was video taped from many angles) Last I checked no one has proved it happened yet....

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[BonThomme]

and they like puppies and kittens, too.

Re:Very un-PC

[ganjadude]

to be fair they are only 2 orgs for the sole reason to get around the IRS, not that there is anything wrong with it as the law is written but if you dont think they are split in 2 companies for the sake of skirting the intent of the law i dont know what to tell ya

Re:Very un-PC

[Bartles]

I agree. Punishment needs to be applied by the head of the executive branch, to which the IRS belongs.

Re:Very un-PC

[Aonghus142000]

Yes, and if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from jack-booted thugs searching your house every month or so. (You're not hiding any subversives or undesirables in your attic, are you?)

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[ganjadude]

so you are telling me that 1/2 the voting public are all in the 1%??

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[ganjadude]

This doesnt seem to be racially motivated. It just seems like common sense. If one group of people tend to kill more people and sell more drugs. wouldnt it make sense to profile them? Is it really crazy that the DEA is always targeting black gang members for being criminals?

see how that works??

Re: Very un-PC

[Lord Kano]

Whereas you probably preferred an ignorant former alcoholic puppet who couldn't react well in emergencies and an equally ignorant schizophrenic religious nutcase who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant out of wedlock and divorcing a year after the shotgun wedding.

You are not even getting the basic facts right. Bristol Palin was never married to Levi. They had an on again/off again engagement but never married.

I would bet that you're one of those Palin haters who can't identify which quotes were hers and which were Tina Fey's.

LK

Re:It is time to end all of this tax-exempt nonsen

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yes, I am subsidizing your nut-choice because you reduce your taxes (hence increase the proportion of my burden) by donating to that nut-bag organization.

As if your taxes don't fund Congress and provide collateral to the Federal Reserve.

Why is that tax-exempt status is granted to organizations

It's those same nuts who are attempting to engage in social engineering to try to mold society to their desires. How many churches speak out against psychopathic leaders? Marking WORKSASINTENDED.

Re:It is time to end all of this tax-exempt nonsen

[bill_mcgonigle]

Let's work out how and how much to spend

It's this delusion that anybody other than the military industrial complex, corporate donors and special interest groups have a voice in such decisions that perpetuates the current system. Wake up and smell the corruption.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

It was either a conspiracy, or perpetrated by a single person.

Do you think the police profiling of stoners is either a conspiracy, or perpetrated by a single person?

Tricky 'Bama

[carys689]

Shades of Richard M. Nixon.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

If TEA Party members and people who belong to groups with "Patriot" in the name were statistically more apt...

No. I don't have to prove that it was *good* profiling for it to be profiling. It can be bad, inaccurate and stupid profiling too. Bad profiling happens all the time. It's still profiling. What makes it profiling, is that someone - *rightly or wrongly* - suspected a group of people with certain characteristics would be more likely than the average to indulge in certain behaviors. And that's what I see as likely being behind these behaviors - not vengefulness.

Which makes even more sense given the additional information you point out - that this was for nonprofit groups after the election. That would have zero usefulness for the Obama administration - if you believe the Tea Party was a threat to Obama, the time for Obama to use his world-running conspiracy powers would have beeb to do this would have been **before** the election.

And separately, the idea that this "effectively shut down political opposition" is just silly. If anything, the Tea party and other right-wing groups have stepped up their opposition to Obama to even greater butthurt tantrum levels.

Re: Very un-PC

[budgenator]

Personally I find that Obama being from Chicago far more damning that his being a black, progressive liberal, muslim.

APK, lord of hosts

[tepples]

APK is a staunch advocate of using the hosts file to block DNS lookups of sites known to host malware and rich-media advertisements. I wrote an article that briefly explains the situation.

Re:APK, lord of hosts

[gottabeme]

How do we know you aren't also APK? Seems like you're popping up everywhere he does.

Re:APK, lord of hosts

[tepples]

How do we know you aren't also APK? Seems like you're popping up everywhere he does.

First, apart from Slashdot, I don't even post on the other forums he posts on. Second, our style differs greatly: I make interleaved replies using Slashdot's quote tag, while APK prefers no quoting at all, short paragraphs, and entire sentences in bold text. Third, my name and address are on my web site.

But after a discussion that we had a few months ago about data structures for blocking list construction, his use of a hosts file in a layered security process intrigued me. (No, I can't dig it up on Google, as Slashdot generally doesn't include later comments to a given story in the view presented to web spiders.)

Re:APK, lord of hosts

[gottabeme]

I don't know what other forums he posts on, but that doesn't prove anything anyway, since you could be posting under an alias. I've long suspected APK of schizophrenia, and I've seen him post in relatively normal styles many times, the only giveaways being his replying to himself and using some key phrases. So I don't think you've proven you're not him. ;) In fact, your mentioning "use of a hosts file in a layered security process" and it intriguing you makes me rather suspicious, because that sounds like the kinds of things he says. And your unusual interest in him and his ideas is also highly irregular. So...

Re:It is time to end all of this tax-exempt nonsen

[phantomfive]

It's all good to cut tax exemptions.......until they cut the one you want. Then you'll complain like nothing else.

Or maybe you won't personally, but a lot of people will. For every exemption out there, people are going to use all their campaigning and manipulative power to make sure it doesn't go away.

Re:You are really bringing out big guns for an aud

[tftp]

Cells are not required for interrogation.

The key issues here are questions that you have no reason to answer (like "how much money is in your wallet?") and the authority of the questioner that makes answering them mandatory.

Or I can explain it in a different way. What is the difference between the following two scenarios?

a) You are arrested, handcuffed, brought into the police station, have a light pointed into your face, and a detective asks questions that he wants answered. Fearing for your well-being, you answer them all.

b) You are sent a letter on paper. The letter lists the same questions and demands answers. Fearing for your well-being, you answer them all.

The difference to you is that you were spared the indignity of being dragged, in handcuffs, to the police station. However there is no difference to the detective - he gets his answers just as well if he asks politely and mentions a big government-issued stick if you fail to answer.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[Ksisanth]

Why hate what you don't pay? If you're a successful tax-dodger, why would you want reform?

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[ttucker]

It was either a conspiracy, or perpetrated by a single person.

Do you think the police profiling of stoners is either a conspiracy, or perpetrated by a single person?

It would seem that if the profiling is endemic of a single police department, much like the abuse committed by the IRS office in Cincinnati, that there is probably some informal or formal policy directing those actions. Is being profiled as a stoner a major problem for you?

Notably missing from the police profiling analogy is the direct motive of political gain, by distracting, harassing, or impeding the opposing political party's campaign efforts during an election.

Are you being paid for this? Maybe some tax debt forgiven? Is it OK, because you voted for Obama? Can you see the inexcusable abuse if you pretend that your least favorite politician did the same thing, and won the election?

Re:Very un-PC

[SuperAlgae]

The IRS is entirely within their right to highly scrutinize requests for tax-exempt status. They just need to do so without political (or racial, gender, etc) bias. The tax rules against political groups getting 501(c)(3) status are already in place ...

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations
"it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates"

The IRS just needs to to their job and enforce it-- FOR EVERYONE.

Re:Very un-PC

[SuperAlgae]

A correction. I should have quoted the 501(c)(4) rules ...

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations
"The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f)."

Some of the organizations in question may really qualify for tax-exempt status under current law, but any such organization with clear political ties should expect to be scrutinized, and the IRS has the authority to do so. If an organization doesn't want that, then they can just pay their taxes like the rest of us.

Re: Very un-PC

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes, historically low employment, higher unemployment, fewer jobs, over $6 trillion spent to prop up the DJIA at a time that small business starts are reaching historical lows, falling real wages, higher gas prices, higher food prices. Yeah, that economy is so much better now!

Re: Very un-PC

[dreamchaser]

I didn't say some people were not opposed to Obama out of racism. My point was that ad hominem and baseless claims of racism are immediately made just about anytime someone criticizes him, and that is true. I'm not the one being stupid here.

Re: Very un-PC

[LynnwoodRooster]

stock markets at record highs

Hey, when you pump $6 trillion into the banking sector, that money has to go somewhere - and it's into the DJIA. Of course, small businesses are closing everywhere and the small business creation rate is at a record low... The only ones doing well are big companies who get those bailout dollars and the "stimulus" spending dropped into their wallets.

housing market recovering

Still way below where it was back in 2008 - and it's showing all the signs of being in a bubble yet-again...

unemployment consistently down (when Republicans are in office, 5% is considered "full employment")

Unemployment consistently down? Well, when you consider nearly 90 MILLION out of the workforce because they couldn't find a job and their unemployment has run out, I guess you can crow all you want about dropping unemployment. But the reality is the rate is going down not because of more jobs, but because the workforce participation rate has plummeted. We'd be lucky to get back to 5% unemployment even with 9 million fewer workers...

Re: Very un-PC

[sociocapitalist]

obama didnt do shit up here when sandy hit last year, it was bloomberg and christie who took care of us.

  bush fucked up as president, alot but obama makes him look like a saint.

You sound just like every other Obama hating right winger I've ever heard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/krugman-sandy-versus-katrina.html?_r=0

Bush was an absolute idiot. You can't make any reasonable comparison.

Re: Very un-PC

[sociocapitalist]

Whereas you probably preferred an ignorant former alcoholic puppet who couldn't react well in emergencies and an equally ignorant schizophrenic religious nutcase who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant out of wedlock and divorcing a year after the shotgun wedding.

You are not even getting the basic facts right. Bristol Palin was never married to Levi. They had an on again/off again engagement but never married.

I would bet that you're one of those Palin haters who can't identify which quotes were hers and which were Tina Fey's.

LK

Okay you're right they never got married but that does not at all change the substance of what I said. Here, I fixed it for you:

"...an equally ignorant schizophrenic religious nutcase who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant during her political campaign.

It's not difficult to find her quotes: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palinisms.htm

She throws out sound bites well, as many right wingers do, but she's either extremely ignorant or a bald faced liar...or both.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[LynnwoodRooster]

You've never really dealt with the IRS, have you? To say that "profiling" or "in-detail questioning" from the IRS isn't persecution shows you've never been subject to such things. Where the norm is to either implicitly (and in many cases, explicitly) threaten and apply liens, levies, and other threats of personal investigations all in an aim to gain information they illegally seek. It's like claiming the local mob boss wanting to have a chat about your dispute with your neighbor isn't persecution...

Re:Still "stinging", sockpuppet?

[Stenchwarrior]

No one runs from you Petey, they just walk away from the ridiculous bullshit you spew. It is kind of nice to see that you're still using phrases like "ad hominem", "sockpuppet" and "P.S.=>", however.

And yes, I am attacking you on a personal level. I don't need to say anything about your completely ignorant statements regarding hosts file usage or the one program you wrote 10 years ago...plenty of people on the interwebs do that for me. I'd rather point out what a loser you must be to troll every forum (the ones you haven't been banned from, anyway) looking for anyone who might have the audacity to dare speak negatively of you so you can then reference multiple 3-year old posts and the names of anyone who have done you wrong (you act like a pissed off girl mad at her cheating ex-boyfriend the way you do that, BTW).

Oh well, at least you've provided me with some entertainment. :-)

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[budgenator]

Your right it's not politically motivated, it's philosophically motivated. it's the philosphy of "The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number" vs. "The Least Harm for Anyone". No rational person is aligned on the extremes of these two positions, but Socialists and Liberals tend to be Greatest Gooders, and Conservatives and Libertarians tend to be Least Harmers. It has nothing to do with thinking people who want to minimise governmental interference in individuals lives are more likely to be "tax dogers" and everything to do with people who want government to micromanage every aspect of society not wanting to lose power.

Re:Very un-PC

[Darinbob]

You mean low level functionaries and regional chiefs doing this, whereas it sounds like you're accusing high level executive branch officials of doing this.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[budgenator]

If you don't realise your paying pretty close to half your gross income in taxes, you've got your head up your ass!
15% goes to Social Security, 15% goes to Medicare,
5-15% is Federal income taxes, 5% in State income taxes, 6% state sales/use taxes, God only knows how much fuel taxes, property taxes for county,municipal and school district.

Re: Very un-PC

[Lord Kano]

Of course I'm right. I deal in facts, not fabrications and slander. Too bad you can't say the same. Well, I suppose you *could* say it, but that would be a fabrication.

...who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant during her political campaign

You're wrong again. Bristol Palin gave birth in December 2008. She got pregnant in the spring of 2008, Sarah wasn't a part of the campaign until August 2008. To spell it out for you, she didn't get pregnant during the campaign. Just to save myself the trouble of correcting you later, the election took place in November 2008, so she didn't have her baby out of wedlock during the campaign either.

But don't let facts get in the way of your hate and vitriol.

LK

Are you really continuing with this?

[dbIII]

So personal imprisonment is equal to the place you are working for having a chance of having to pay a fine?
Sorry kid, but you've got nothing and also appear to have quite a bit of growing up to do instead of spouting juvenile shit here.

Re:Very un-PC

[PopeRatzo]

to be fair they are only 2 orgs for the sole reason to get around the IRS, not that there is anything wrong with it as the law is written but if you dont think they are split in 2 companies for the sake of skirting the intent of the law i dont know what to tell ya

You can look at it another way: The intent of the law is to allow organizations like this to split into two. And to exist.

Remember, every bit of the Revenue Act that has been written in the past 30 years has been written by lobbyists. It would be easy enough to say, "You can do what you want with your organization, but you have to pay your taxes." Remember also, when an organization is tax exempt, that means the rest of us are subsidizing them to a certain extent. Why do you think capital gains are taxed at a different level than money that somebody worked for? And before you say, "double taxation" remember that only a tiny percentage of the money that's classified as "capital gains" comes from dividends. Why does the Revenue Act allow Apple to get away with claiming that 2/3 of their income comes from outside the US? Do you think that would stand up to an audit?

The tax law is written specifically to allow certain people to benefit. Everybody knows that the tax law fills volumes and volumes of books, but not everybody realizes that all but a hundred pages or so are exemptions and carve-outs for special interests, like people who have horses that dance in the Olympics and deductible interest on second homes in Aspen.

The reason that there is not a simpler tax law is because the people who have the actual power (almost none of which are part of government, by the way) want it that way.

Re:Terrorists deserve investigation

[khallow]

I'm curious what part of the world would think that founding a revolutionary group, based on communist principles and which bombed a variety of government and military targets in order to protest a war, would not be leftist? Just because Bill Ayers happens to live in the US doesn't mean that it is somehow impossible for him to be a leftist.

I think it more likely that the self-appointed gatekeepers for the definition of "left" are merely completely clueless.

Re: Very un-PC

[khallow]

It is very telling when the grave ills of the world can be improved by you merely growing up and changing how you view the world.

We don't try to impeach YOUR shitty President for massive crimes when you've worked tirelessly to impeach ours over blowjobs.

You mean that the bad,evil Rethuglicans will actually persecute presidents for committing crimes (here, perjury which is a felony), while you will overlook "massive crimes"? So you are less moral than even the Rethuglicans? That's pretty pathetic.

And don't ride my ass about Obama, he's a fucking failure. I only voted for him because we all know Mitt Romney would have been worse.

"We" know no such thing. But we do know from what you wrote above that you vote for fucking failures.

When I look at the pathological, fake morality, the epic bad decisions, and the naked bigotry, I just have to wonder, why are you wasting our time with this crap? Can't you see the intellectually toxic sewer you dwell in?

Re: Very un-PC

[khallow]

And Obama had the good fortune of his disaster being in the far more competent New York City area rather than Louisiana.

Re: Very un-PC

[omfgnosis]

the left should have made it painfully clear that they didn't care about obama's race at all, and was inconsequential to his candidacy.

Not stating an opinion on race issues isn't the same as combating racism. It's clearly the case that race is still a serious issue in the US, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. That won't go away by deciding not to discuss it.

Instead, they said that if you didn't like him, for any reason, you were inherently racist.

This is just painfully wrong. I'm a leftist. I oppose Obama. I've never once been called racist for that. Not even a little bit. I've been asked if I think it's meaningful or significant that a black person was elected in the US (which I do). I've been challenged on specific opinions I hold about his administration. I've never been called racist for opposing him. And almost everyone I know voted for him.

The reason that so many right-wing opponents of Obama are called racist is because there's been an incredible surge in racist organization in the time since he was nominated and elected, and there's a tremendous amount of overlap between that and the right-wing opponents. I don't think it's entirely fair that a lot of run-of-the-mill conservatives are guilty by association in this, but to be fair the vast majority of the reaction to this has been the sort of defensiveness that you've presented here rather than any kind of meaningful denunciation of racism or even simple attempt to understand why race is an issue for anyone other than old white men. Let me make that as clear as I can: people of color also experience racism, and their experience of it is different from yours. It behooves you to understand that. Even if you are not, yourself, racist.

Guilt by association really isn't fair. But it's also not fair to provide tacit political cover for bigots and claim ignorance when it's used to advance bigotry. Hate-related crimes are and have been on the rise, and white supremacist organizations are stronger than they've been for decades. This isn't an accident.

Don't want to be mistaken for a racist? Spend as much time challenging the racists in your midst as you spend attacking people who aren't as stupid as you think.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

I don't see how any of that follows.

Also, as this occurred after the election, I don't see how this benefits Obama. That's what I'm saying. This makes sense as profiling, and does not make sense as top-down political persecution.

I'm not being paid or having tax debt forgiven for this. Are you being paid by the GOP, or has someone affiliated with the Republican Party in Congress promised to cut your taxes?

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Do you understand the difference between profiling and deliberate, top-down-ordered political persecution?

Put it to you this way: do you think the added attention Muslims tend to be given regarding terrorist attacks is profiling or persecution?

Re: Very un-PC

[sociocapitalist]

And Obama had the good fortune of his disaster being in the far more competent New York City area rather than Louisiana.

Not to mention the good fortune of being born with the intelligence sufficient to enable him to respond quickly when disaster did strike.

If Bush had been competent, he would have taken control of the situation in Louisiana. There is no excuse for such a poor disaster response in the most powerful country in the world.

Re: Very un-PC

[khallow]

Not to mention the good fortune of being born with the intelligence sufficient to enable him to respond quickly when disaster did strike.

Let's not get too hasty with our accusations. I haven't seen any such demonstration of intelligence.

If Bush had been competent, he would have taken control of the situation in Louisiana.

He did. The problem was that he took control after the disaster. What people forget is that FEMA was not intended to manage the Katrina disaster response at first. As part of the Department of Homeland Security shuffle that was going on at the time, emergency response was supposed to be handled mostly by the state and local governments. That incidentally is what happened in the Hurricane Sandy incident.

But both Louisiana and New Orleans made profoundly bad decisions prior to the disaster that killed people. So by the time that became apparent, the federal government took over disaster response, the whole thing had become a huge mess.

Now, it is reasonable to question the wisdom and intelligence of ending FEMA's leadership without an adequate replacement or a good phase-out plan, but to claim that Bush didn't "take control" when he did?

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[ttucker]

They admitted to what they were doing after the election, the scandal is after the election, the abuse was during the election.

From TFA (in the first paragraph, maybe you skimmed it):

The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

I guess you are sticking with, "It was OK because Obama won.", or, "I am too ignorant, or in denial, to acknowledge direct and blatant abuse, even when told about it directly from a news source which almost always champions views apologizing for such abuse."

Furthermore, I vote for Ron Paul, so fuck the GOP. This is not about left/right, it is about liberty/tyranny. If you think your rights as a human being are being protected by a clever choice between Republican or Democrat, you are the worst kind of fool.

Re: Very un-PC

[sociocapitalist]

Of course I'm right. I deal in facts, not fabrications and slander. Too bad you can't say the same. Well, I suppose you *could* say it, but that would be a fabrication.

...who couldn't keep her own teenage daughter from getting pregnant during her political campaign

You're wrong again. Bristol Palin gave birth in December 2008. She got pregnant in the spring of 2008, Sarah wasn't a part of the campaign until August 2008. To spell it out for you, she didn't get pregnant during the campaign. Just to save myself the trouble of correcting you later, the election took place in November 2008, so she didn't have her baby out of wedlock during the campaign either.

But don't let facts get in the way of your hate and vitriol.

LK

You focus on the detail of exactly when the events in question happened to try and discredit the statements of them actually happening. Nice try at spin but it doesn't change anything.

Palin failed her children with her abstinence only policies. The daughter, announcing her teenage out of wedlock pregnancy in September of 2008, during the election, the son marrying his already five months pregnant girlfriend later on (and divorcing a year after that), tell us that Palin is not able to manage her own family let alone an entire country.

Her trying to get books that she doesn't approve of banned from the public library and her refusal to believe in evolution, preferring creationism, are even more scary.

I don't hate her. I am afraid of her and the people who support her. Thankfully there weren't enough of you to make it happen though.

Re: Very un-PC

[sociocapitalist]

I see no point in discussing this further with someone who believes that no matter how bad things were handled it wasn't Bush's fault and no matter how well they were handled it wasn't to the credit of Obama.

Re: Very un-PC

[Lord Kano]

I don't hate her. I am afraid of her and the people who support her.

And that's the crux of the matter. Fear is not rational.

LK

Re: Very un-PC

[khallow]

I see no point in discussing this further with someone who believes that no matter how bad things were handled it wasn't Bush's fault and no matter how well they were handled it wasn't to the credit of Obama.

This is delicious. In other words, you say you see no point to discussion with someone who disagrees with you.

Re: Very un-PC

[wierd_w]

Probably a bit late to respond, (mothers day an all).. but here it goes anyway.

A lot of people on both sides make a significant error:

"Because *i*don't do/am not X, then [all others I affiliate with] must also not do/be X"

I don't make this assertion. I am not a racist, but many independents, and centrists most certainly are. My being a centrist does not intrinsically make me a racist. Nor does being a racist make one a centrist.

Same is true for other political and philosophical associations. Conservatives aren't by necessity racist, nor are all racists conservative.

What does this mean? It means that the "I am X, and what you say never happened (to me) therefor it never happened at all!" Line is simply unsupportable.

Usually, the conversation would go down something like this:

"Are you happy that Obama was elected president?"
(No.)

"Are you happy that a black president was elected?"
(Loaded question. I haveno opinion on if that is good or bad. So, since I am not explicitly happy about it, since I "don't care", the answer is "no." That position does not compute in the loaded nature of the question though.)

"Do you support affirmative action, and other "hand up" programs for black people?"
(Another loaded question. I don't believe in double standards, and assert strongly that 2 wrongs do not make something right. Do I support hand-up programs to *disadvantaged* people? Yes. Does that exclude black people? No. Do I believe that black people should get special treatment because of their skin color? No, that is racism. As such, the answer again is "no". Again, a loaded question where the qualified no answer does not compute with the questioner.)

Based on those answers, I get bitchslapped with being a racist, because I am not a coolaid drinker, and my answers get cut off before I can qualify them.

Inverse racsm is still racism. Affirmative action and pals are racist. As racist as segregation was. It won't and can't fix the racist epidemic here. What will is being completely blind to color for any kind of candidacy requirement.

Instead of AA, ask these questions:

What is the educational and economic background of this PERSON? (Parents don't hold degrees? Financially impoverished family history? Etc.) If they are in need of help, then provide services. Doesn't matter what color they are. Could be green for all I care. There are plenty of multigeneration white people that so disadvantaged. (And yes, there *were* white slaves in the south. Irish indentured servants were more common than you think, and were frequently illegally sold.)

You probably weren't branded with the big knarly "R" word, because your left leaning philosophy likely says "yes" to all those questions. As a centrist, I am NOT a leftist, and say NO with qualifications to many of those questions. Because the issue was so contentious, and people had such short fuses over it, the "either for us or against us!" Mindset was in full swing. People in the middle like me got the full monty right up the ass from both sides.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[Rockoon]

Here's a simpler answer: The Tea Party's initials are supposed to be "Taxed Enough Already".

..which does not support the claim "MORE tea-partiers [are] completely anti-tax, than any other political groups even half their size"

You seem to have a problem keeping track of what you are claiming, because within 1 post you completely forgot it.

Either you make claims that you can defend, or you make claims that you cannot defend. Your "defense" in this case does not defend your claim, yet you eagerly await my response...

Here is a hint: Something that supports a claim has to actually include the thing being claimed, rather than specifically exclude the thing being claimed. I realize that in your blind hate-filled rage against the tea party that pesky details such as logic are easily to overlooked... but thats because you arent grounded in reality, but instead in emotion.

Another hint: Feeling is not Thinking

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[cold fjord]

It would be more like a company saying they don't believe the DMV has the right to say whether or not people can drive

If you want to go in that direction, you have it wrong. The "company" would be advocating for lower sales tax, not challenging the right of the DMV to license people, or even charge fees, for that matter. Once again, there is no connection between what the targets of abuse were doing, and what was reasonable behavior on the part of the bureaucrats involved.

You keep wanting to paint this as somehow reasonable and more or less benign, which is ridiculous. The IRS has admitted that what went on was completely wrong and inappropriate. I'm curious, what is it about this that makes you want to pick up the gauntlet on behalf of the IRS, to defend what they condemn? Is there an insight you have that you could share with them to make them see the light that what they were doing, although apparently in violation of standards, practices, and perhaps regulation or the law, was actually OK? Something they should fee good about? Would you feel the same way if it was a group from another part of the political spectrum, one closer to your heart? Or is this all just a troll?

Re: Very un-PC

[sociocapitalist]

I don't hate her. I am afraid of her and the people who support her.

And that's the crux of the matter. Fear is not rational.

LK

Of course fears can be rational. Typical inaccurate generalization.

Re: Very un-PC

[sociocapitalist]

I see no point in discussing this further with someone who believes that no matter how bad things were handled it wasn't Bush's fault and no matter how well they were handled it wasn't to the credit of Obama.

This is delicious. In other words, you say you see no point to discussion with someone who disagrees with you.

Not at all. I have long discussions with many people who disagree with me on a regular basis. I find such discussions to be interesting and stimulating.

I'll try and clarify for you: I see no point in discussion with someone who will ignore any information that goes against what they want to be true, which appears to be the case with you.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Alright, fine. Still profiling IMHO, and not some sort of top-down conspiracy. Unless you can prove otherwise. If you can, please do so.

I guess you are sticking with, "It was OK because Obama won.", or, "I am too ignorant, or in denial, to acknowledge direct and blatant abuse, even when told about it directly from a news source which almost always champions views apologizing for such abuse."

Nope, none of the above. It appears you've been skimming my comments, or for whatever reason what I'm actually saying is being rejected before analysis.

I'll say it again, just to give it one more chance:
This was profiling, not persecution.
Profiling is not necessarily good, and can be bad. But Persecution is worse than profiling.
Profiling does not at all need a conspiracy to occur.
This was not a conspiracy.

So, there you have it. Good day, sir.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

..which does not support the claim "MORE tea-partiers [are] completely anti-tax, than any other political groups even half their size"

No, the larger analysis of that, which you really shouldn't have needed but I still provided just to prove the point, is my *other* response to this question. Please go look at that. And then, if you like, provide your counter-analysis, and FIND a political group that has more anti-tax members.

This was a more common-sense answer, which I perhaps should have expected you to ignore. So, if it's numbers analysis you are requesting, go respond to that one, rather than ignore it.

Here is a hint: Something that supports a claim has to actually include the thing being claimed, rather than specifically exclude the thing being claimed.

You mean, like I did in the other comment you're now ignoring. Interesting.

As re: feeling is not thinking, physician heal thyself. Aso, consider that projection is a fascinating phenomenon.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[ttucker]

Stamp the ground, plug your ears, jam your head down a hole! The fact is that the IRS abused (profiled as you say) people from a single political movement during, and in a way which did definitely affect, the election. Even the IRS admits this is a fact. Ignore this fact at your own peril.

Of course you might be right, and the motive behind this factual event was totally absent, completely senseless and completely random... it is a hypothesis without disproof. If our goal were only to think of the simplest single plausible hypothesis, we could certainly stop there. Among circles that use thought more rigorously, it is customary to at least entertain some alternative explanations (even if only to disprove them). In this case, the potential gain, opportunity, and act, are entirely consistent with reasonable hypotheses involving significantly more malice which deserve consideration. Perhaps the director of the IRS field office wanted to persecute Tea Party organizations, or maybe somebody told him to. As mere future peons, we will never know the truth.

The fact is, we will never know the truth. No inquest will be made, and no investigative report will see the light of day. Justice if due, will never be dealt. So it still seems kinda ignorant when you say:

This was not a conspiracy.

I guess you are still sticking with, "It was OK because Obama won.", or, "I am too ignorant, or in denial, to acknowledge direct and blatant abuse, even when told about it directly from a news source which almost always champions views apologizing for such abuse."

--
The invisible dick of Federal Cronyism is what fucks workers in the ass.

Re: Very un-PC

[khallow]

I see no point in discussion with someone who will ignore any information that goes against what they want to be true, which appears to be the case with you.

What did I say that gives that appearance? There's only so much that actually happened. I merely poked holes in the myths you parroted, such as the alleged greater intelligence of Obama (despite his continued inability to demonstrate that supposedly greater intelligence) than G. W. Bush, asserting that Bush didn't "take control" of Katrina (when he did, just at a later time), or the myth of the start of this line of discussion, the claim that Obama handled Sandy better than Bush handled Katrina (when most of the differences can be explained by the incompetence of the New Orleans government - from construction of flood control systems to preparing for a large hurricane).

Then you state that you see no point in discussion this further "with someone who believes that no matter how bad things were handled it wasn't Bush's fault and no matter how well they were handled it wasn't to the credit of Obama". I agree. You should spend your time instead getting educated about what actually happened in these disasters and how local and state governments responded.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[jbeach]

Stamp the ground, plug your ears, jam your head down a hole! The fact is that the IRS abused (profiled as you say) people from a single political movement during, and in a way which did definitely affect, the election. Even the IRS admits this is a fact. Ignore this fact at your own peril.

Yep, that's exactly what you're doing.

I said FROM THE BEGINNING this was profiling. I NEVER SAID this was a good thing.

And it's absurd to state that this affected the election. That is, as I'm sure you would say if our roles were reversed, quite an extreme claim to show with no evidence. In fact, I demand that you show your evidence for that claim right now.

I mean, my God!

I guess you are still sticking with, "It was OK because Obama won."

Not only am I not "sticking with" that, that was never my position to begin with. I'm saying it's not conspiracy, because a conspiracy very specifically requires collusion from the top with malicious intent. Which YOU have NO EVIDENCE of. As I've said multiple times, just as police can profile kids as stoners without colluding across states and police departments or even WITHIN police departments, so this sort of profiling doesn't require a conspiracy either.

I hope this at last gets through this time. But if not, that's fine too. Cheers, and may all be well with you.

Re: Very un-PC

[terrycarlino]

About Obama's greater intelligence. You're basing that on? His higher college transcript grades? Wait he won't release those. His successful business career? Wait he never had a position where he actually managed anybody or carried out a business plan. His long distinguished career in government? Wait he never held a committee chair in the Senate, and was only in a federal legislative position for less that 2 years. His entire period of government service prior to his election as president was only about a decade, and for much of that at the local level he voted present rather than yes or no. Not that Bush was any great mind either. But then I didn't put forward Bush as having any great level of intelligence.

Re: Very un-PC

[terrycarlino]

The only problem with your argument is the idea that every appointee to a federal position is somehow a partisan hack who cares more about his political affiliation than about his own personal career or power. Your assumption is that because a Republican president appoint a particular individual that that individual would not carry out an action because of what...party loyalty? Gee I guess no member of congress elected from a certain party would ever change affiliations and toss the Senate from control of one party to another. Yes no one lost their tax exempt status, but somehow information given to the IRS from these investigations were leaked to a left leaning media company. No one lost their status, but how many other groups gave up the attempt to file for legitimate tax exempt status because they saw what these groups went through? That's a form of illegal suppressive government action. You don't think that knowing their donations or supporting actions won't be leaked to private politically motivated media might cause some people to decide not to exercise their constitutional right to free speech. Even more you don't think that if this is allowed to pass without heads rolling that the next Republican president, or his appointees, might not think that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and start investigating MoveOn or Media Matters, or AARP?

Re:So...

[terrycarlino]

I guess you're missing the part where as citizens a group has the right to be opposed to taxation as long as they obey the law, while as a government agency the IRS does not have the right to selectively harass you for being opposed to taxation, as long as you obey the law.

Re: Very un-PC

[JWW]

Umm. I get where you're coming from, but then by the same measure, he did in fact add 1 country to that list and is now seriously looking at adding another....

So is APK Twitter now?

[tepples]

Please don't let the fact that I'm trying to understand how to benefit from a local DNS blacklist escalate into accusations of sock puppetry that can only be compared to what "Twitter" meant before that microblog site took off.