IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups

[Iamtdg]

[video=youtube;vCjssK-i4Mg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vCjssK-i4Mg[/video]

 

[Ben_in_Austin]

I don't know your posting history, but a little of both.

Meant that to be funny, but it wasn't.

 

[dbair1967]

[video=youtube;vCjssK-i4Mg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vCjssK-i4Mg[/video]

:towel

 

[dbair1967]

you can't honestly believe this has anything to do with the president can you? I mean come the fuck on here. Just think about what that means? The president of the most powerful nation in the world told an IRS task force in fucking Cincinnatti to scrutinize tea party groups that are applying for social welfare tax exempt status by asking them questions and making them fill out questionnaires...only to approve them anyhow?

this might be the dumbest "scandal" I've ever heard.

Wake up SP

 

[peplaw06]

Just that its not a big deal.

Apparently no one can trust the IRS. How is that not a big deal?

 

[dbair1967]

SP answer to all Obama scandals:

"its not a big deal"

 

[MetalHead]

Wake up SP

 

[MetalHead]

“We’re not political,’’ said one determinations staffer in khakis as he left work late Tuesday afternoon. “We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. . . . That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”http://washingtonexaminer.com/anony...verything-comes-from-the-top./article/2530001

Well choke my chicken...

 

[Ben_in_Austin]

Apparently no one can trust the IRS. How is that not a big deal?

But the question is is it a conservative/liberal thing or an IRS thing?

 

[VTA]

But the question is is it a conservative/liberal thing or an IRS thing?

You base it on the practice. Has it been even-handed treatment all around, or was it just conservative groups? Apparently it was conservative groups targeted, while in the same time period, liberal groups were treated differently.

(I dropped the link somewhere in this thread, but I'm too lazy to fish for it right now....)

 

[Ben_in_Austin]

You base it on the practice. Has it been even-handed treatment all around, or was it just conservative groups? Apparently it was conservative groups targeted, while in the same time period, liberal groups were treated differently.

(I dropped the link somewhere in this thread, but I'm too lazy to fish for it right now....)

I get it. This time they were targeting conservatives. But I didn't think this was a one-time event. The IRS has done this before, or am I wrong?

 

[MetalHead]

You base it on the practice. Has it been even-handed treatment all around, or was it just conservative groups? Apparently it was conservative groups targeted, while in the same time period, liberal groups were treated differently.

(I dropped the link somewhere in this thread, but I'm too lazy to fish for it right now....)

In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows. As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...ive-orgs-targeted-than-first-thought-n1596864

 

[MetalHead]

I get it. This time they were targeting conservatives. But I didn't think this was a one-time event. The IRS has done this before, or am I wrong?

Nixon did it....how did that work out?

 

[VTA]

I get it. This time they were targeting conservatives. But I didn't think this was a one-time event. The IRS has done this before, or am I wrong?

I honestly don't know, if such influence had been used under a Republican administration. It's not unreasonable to question the President in power when things like this occur, especially when it magically appears to benefit his party. People make the partisan correlation all the time, regardless of who is President and reasonably so. If the roles were reversed, it would just be different people crying foul and the other side making excuses.

 

[Ben_in_Austin]

I honestly don't know, if such influence had been used under a Republican administration. It's not unreasonable to question the President in power when things like this occur, especially when it magically appears to benefit his party. People make the partisan correlation all the time, regardless of who is President and reasonably so. If the roles were reversed, it would just be different people crying foul and the other side making excuses.

I agree really. I just don't think Obama needed to do that. I really don't think he had anything to do with this particular incident. But who knows. Anyway, screw the IRS. I just got done paying those assholes.

 

[MetalHead]

I honestly don't know, if such influence had been used under a Republican administration. It's not unreasonable to question the President in power when things like this occur, especially when it magically appears to benefit his party. People make the partisan correlation all the time, regardless of who is President and reasonably so. If the roles were reversed, it would just be different people crying foul and the other side making excuses.

Read Article 2.1

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

 

[VTA]

Read Article 2.1

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

Thanks. Never really studied any of Nixon's story...

 

[VTA]

I agree really. I just don't think Obama needed to do that. I really don't think he had anything to do with this particular incident. But who knows. Anyway, screw the IRS. I just got done paying those assholes.

Needed to in getting directly involved no. Being benefitted by it, of course.
He doesn't need to be involved. The Capo doesn't have to be involved with day to day affairs which get his hands dirty; he has his Consigliere's who know his general ethics and wishes and can disseminate the matters of getting things down through a network of buffers, who relay it to the button men who pull the trigger. The button men have a general understanding of who and why, but they're so far removed from the nuances and inner workings of their network, they can never lay a finger of conviction on a Consigliere, let alone the Capo.

 

[Ben_in_Austin]

Needed to in getting directly involved no. Being benefitted by it, of course.
He doesn't need to be involved. The Capo doesn't have to be involved with day to day affairs which get his hands dirty; he has his Consigliere's who know his general ethics and wishes and can disseminate the matters of getting things down through a network of buffers, who relay it to the button men who pull the trigger. The button men have a general understanding of who and why, but they're so far removed from the nuances and inner workings of their network, they can never lay a finger of conviction on a Consigliere, let alone the Capo.

Say what??

 

[VTA]

That's East Coast organized crime speak. No matter what it's called, it's the same in all places and reliable in keeping the bosses image, if not clean, overly dirty.