Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about the ratio of conservative to liberal organizations trying to get the tax status?
Would you find it a little bit hard to believe not a single group applied for tax exemption between 2010 and 2012 using the term "occupy".
That's all irrelevant becsue this is the only thing that matters:
Quote:
In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words "progress"or "progressive" intheir names were processed as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the time frame of our audit.
Those numbers are irrelevant to the lists, it's who was actually processed.
No the IG is telling me that and CNN is using selective testimony.
You quote from the article:
No groups using the term"occupy" for example were selected. How can you be on a list and not be selected?
Every group with the term "tea Party" was selected, that's in stark contrast to the small percentage of those using progressive and the 0 percent using the term "occupy".
That is the problem coalman...I do not know of any reference to the base for any of these selections. Was this a place where "progress" and "tea party" were present in similar size groups? Did most "progress" groups slide through and were accepted?
I continue to assert the right thing to do was to have turned them all down...And the failure was a political concern for doing so.
Did most "progress" groups slide through and were accepted? .
Exactly because they weren't being selected becsue of their name. Any progressive group that was flagged was flagged for other reasons. "tea party" on the other hand flagged it hence the reason 100% of them were flagged.
It should also be noted that on these lists there was specific instructions for those with "Tea party", no such instructions for those using liberal names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
I continue to assert the right thing to do was to have turned them all down...And the failure was a political concern for doing so.
I don't disagree with that but the law needs to be applied equally, if you're going to turn down "tea party" applicants you need turn down "progressive" applicants. If you are going to flag applicants using the term "tea party" and other conservative names you need to flag applicants using liberal names equally. That wasn't done here.
Again no groups with the name "Progressive" were targeted by the IRS between 2010 and 2012 becsue they had the name progressive. That is 0, nada, none... 100 percent using the term Tea Party were.
To make a point about selective "revelation" of information to support a position ... were any groups with the name "Liberal" or "Democratic" targetted by the IRS between 2010 and 2012 (?) because they had the name "liberal" or "democratic"? (waitaminute...were groups with the name "progressive" as a name part targeted for some reason OTHER than the fact they had "progressive" in their name?...). How about "Obama" in their name? Maybe "Left-wing"?
Oh, are we ONLY talking about groups with the name "progressive" and "tea party" ?
Okay, I get it.
[as an aside about this whole targetting thing - I certainly hope the IRS did and continues to target entities for further investigation based off nothing more than their names (at first); that for SURE seems like an entirely valid parameter to trigger further investigation to me ( I would expect most such further investigations to result in nothing interesting but I'd bet the number of valid denials would be tremendously higher than a simple random sampling)]
That is why criminals (who are guilty) "plead the Fifth". They are all innocent!
Wow. I gave you (twice!) a link to an unbiased, apolitical lecture on why taking the 5th amendment is ALWAYS a good idea and you didn't bother to watch it or understand it yet you comment derogatarily about the idea.
Good grief.
Okay, well twice is enough. Enjoy your literally naive hatred of Ms. Lerner.
To make a point about selective "revelation" of information to support a position ... were any groups with the name "Liberal" or "Democratic" targetted by the IRS between 2010 and 2012
If I were venture to guess the terms Liberal and Democrat would be targeted because they are obviously political in nature but I would also venture to guess so were Conservative and Republican. That's besides the point becsue you would have an equal application of the law. If the term liberal was being used and not conservative then you would have a point.
Quote:
that for SURE seems like an entirely valid parameter to trigger further investigation to me
Certainly it's valid but that is not what is in question here, the law needs to be applied equally and if you are going to target conservative names you need to target liberal names too.
My apologies for not being clearer - people are making a Big Deal about, literally, the terms "Tea Party" and "Progressive" in names and if said names generated a review, manual or automatic, of an entity's application. My post was meant to take that beyond JUST those two terms since, really, that IS what the controversy should be all about. Because if the "controversy" is JUST about THOSE two terms it's even more meaningless.
And that is exactly what the letter refers to and you have provided a prime example of the media bias using selective testimony. This is from the same hearing:
So that's seven cases ... still got you head in the sand?
You just proved my point. I wrote some liberal organizations were targeted and you agree.
I think it was found that about 29% of those organizations seeking tax exempt status that received scrutiny were liberal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
