Do You Think The IRS Did Anything Wrong?

[Sherry]

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least the bulk of the "Scandal" involved targeting, and not actually un-justified denial of status, correct?

Seems that the IRS lower-middle-management found a fairly efficient strategy for identifying political entities intent on abusing non-profit status.

Where's the problem?

It's an abuse of power...plain and simple.

How's it an abuse of anything? If in the normal course of events I discover that a lot of people who owe me money use the phrase "In the mail" in their e-mails, so then I search for that term to see if anyone else owes me money... Am I unfairly targeting them for using that, and not giving every e-mail I get the same level of scrutiny?

Again I understand why people are upset for partisan reasons... But no... No abuse of power given the narrative I'm aware of. They were in fact ineligible for the status they were attempting to abuse.

It does not appear to be politically motivated.

You are so drunk on the Kool-Aid.

 

[Cuyo]

Sure.

They didn't profile fake-liberal tax cheats as well.
Profiling works. We all use key-word searches so no news there.

The senior bureaucrats involved by err and/or omission should be fired, lose their pensions and go to jail.

Funny, the left doesn't like profiling but they profiled the fuck out of their targets.

Here is an opportunity to sell profiling.

Instead of braying partisan horseshit at the moon, what about firing and prosecuting the folks who did it because these sum EXEMPTED the fake-left from their bureaucratic pogram?

Dugdale, I don't think they intentionally even did that. They just didn't happen to come across many controversial search terms to use in that endeavor. Or at least, nothing that's found the light of day yet.

 

[Cuyo]

It's an abuse of power...plain and simple.

How's it an abuse of anything? If in the normal course of events I discover that a lot of people who owe me money use the phrase "In the mail" in their e-mails, so then I search for that term to see if anyone else owes me money... Am I unfairly targeting them for using that, and not giving every e-mail I get the same level of scrutiny?

Again I understand why people are upset for partisan reasons... But no... No abuse of power given the narrative I'm aware of. They were in fact ineligible for the status they were attempting to abuse.

It does not appear to be politically motivated.

You are so drunk on the Kool-Aid.

You guys aren't doing much to negate anything I've said.

 

[boedicca]

You haven't said anything worthy of refutation. You're just a leftwing hack spewing talking points.

 

[depotoo]

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least the bulk of the "Scandal" involved targeting, and not actually un-justified denial of status, correct?

Seems that the IRS lower-middle-management found a fairly efficient strategy for identifying political entities intent on abusing non-profit status.

Where's the problem?

It's an abuse of power...plain and simple.

How's it an abuse of anything? If in the normal course of events I discover that a lot of people who owe me money use the phrase "In the mail" in their e-mails, so then I search for that term to see if anyone else owes me money... Am I unfairly targeting them for using that, and not giving every e-mail I get the same level of scrutiny?

Again I understand why people are upset for partisan reasons... But no... No abuse of power given the narrative I'm aware of. They were in fact ineligible for the status they were attempting to abuse. It does not appear to be politically motivated.

since noone was turned down, just subjected to invasive requirements, and postponed for as long as 3 years when 2 months is the norm, only conservative , religious and pro-Israel groups were targeted, I think you are wrong.

 

[Cuyo]

You haven't said anything worthy of refutation. You're just a leftwing hack spewing talking points.

I'm a conscientious observer giving you a conclusion based on available facts, and history tells me I'm nothing short of a voice of reason amid the likes of you.

But in any event, your insults address nothing.

 

[Sherry]

How's it an abuse of anything? If in the normal course of events I discover that a lot of people who owe me money use the phrase "In the mail" in their e-mails, so then I search for that term to see if anyone else owes me money... Am I unfairly targeting them for using that, and not giving every e-mail I get the same level of scrutiny?

Again I understand why people are upset for partisan reasons... But no... No abuse of power given the narrative I'm aware of. They were in fact ineligible for the status they were attempting to abuse.

It does not appear to be politically motivated.

You are so drunk on the Kool-Aid.

You guys aren't doing much to negate anything I've said.

There wouldn't be much point attempting to get you to "see the light" when you've got your head buried so deep in the sand...this is a clear case of political bias.

 

[Cuyo]

It's an abuse of power...plain and simple.

How's it an abuse of anything? If in the normal course of events I discover that a lot of people who owe me money use the phrase "In the mail" in their e-mails, so then I search for that term to see if anyone else owes me money... Am I unfairly targeting them for using that, and not giving every e-mail I get the same level of scrutiny?

Again I understand why people are upset for partisan reasons... But no... No abuse of power given the narrative I'm aware of. They were in fact ineligible for the status they were attempting to abuse. It does not appear to be politically motivated.

since noone was turned down, just subjected to invasive requirements, and postponed for as long as 3 years when 2 months is the norm, only conservative , religious and pro-Israel groups were targeted, I think you are wrong.

Yes, sure, can you please direct me to those organizations that were denied who were in fact eligible, and demonstrate that it was outside the realm of what's considered normal?

 

[Cuyo]

You are so drunk on the Kool-Aid.

You guys aren't doing much to negate anything I've said.

There wouldn't be much point attempting to get you to "see the light" when you've got your head buried so deep in the sand...this is a clear case of political bias.

No, please, I can learn. Show me the light?

Is the narrative something different than what I've stated?

 

[dilloduck]

How's it an abuse of anything? If in the normal course of events I discover that a lot of people who owe me money use the phrase "In the mail" in their e-mails, so then I search for that term to see if anyone else owes me money... Am I unfairly targeting them for using that, and not giving every e-mail I get the same level of scrutiny?

Again I understand why people are upset for partisan reasons... But no... No abuse of power given the narrative I'm aware of. They were in fact ineligible for the status they were attempting to abuse. It does not appear to be politically motivated.

since noone was turned down, just subjected to invasive requirements, and postponed for as long as 3 years when 2 months is the norm, only conservative , religious and pro-Israel groups were targeted, I think you are wrong.

Yes, sure, can you please direct me to those organizations that were denied who were in fact eligible, and demonstrate that it was outside the realm of what's considered normal?

Why is denial the only criteria ? How many were harassed to the point of giving up ?

 

[depotoo]

How's it an abuse of anything? If in the normal course of events I discover that a lot of people who owe me money use the phrase "In the mail" in their e-mails, so then I search for that term to see if anyone else owes me money... Am I unfairly targeting them for using that, and not giving every e-mail I get the same level of scrutiny?

Again I understand why people are upset for partisan reasons... But no... No abuse of power given the narrative I'm aware of. They were in fact ineligible for the status they were attempting to abuse. It does not appear to be politically motivated.

since noone was turned down, just subjected to invasive requirements, and postponed for as long as 3 years when 2 months is the norm, only conservative , religious and pro-Israel groups were targeted, I think you are wrong.

Yes, sure, can you please direct me to those organizations that were denied who were in fact eligible, and demonstrate that it was outside the realm of what's considered normal?

you stated they were in fact ineligible. That is false.

 

[Cuyo]

since noone was turned down, just subjected to invasive requirements, and postponed for as long as 3 years when 2 months is the norm, only conservative , religious and pro-Israel groups were targeted, I think you are wrong.

Yes, sure, can you please direct me to those organizations that were denied who were in fact eligible, and demonstrate that it was outside the realm of what's considered normal?

Why is denial the only criteria ? How many were harassed to the point of giving up ?

Ok, fine... Can you show me the ones who were harassed to the point of giving up, who were indeed eligible?

 

[Ernie S.]

Funny, the left doesn't like profiling but they profiled the fuck out of their targets.

Here is an opportunity to sell profiling.

Instead of braying partisan horseshit at the moon, what about firing and prosecuting the folks who did it because these sum EXEMPTED the fake-left from their bureaucratic pogram?

Dugdale, I don't think they intentionally even did that. They just didn't happen to come across many controversial search terms to use in that endeavor. Or at least, nothing that's found the light of day yet.

Can you provide a list of the search terms used? I'm willing to bet that words like "progress", "Progressive", "obama", "Islamic", "Gun Control, "Hope" and "Change" are nowhere to be seen.

 

[Cuyo]

since noone was turned down, just subjected to invasive requirements, and postponed for as long as 3 years when 2 months is the norm, only conservative , religious and pro-Israel groups were targeted, I think you are wrong.

Yes, sure, can you please direct me to those organizations that were denied who were in fact eligible, and demonstrate that it was outside the realm of what's considered normal?

you stated they were in fact ineligible. That is false.

I've seen nothing, anywhere, even in the most fervent, blood-thirsty, mouth-foamyiest right wing venues that has indicated that eligible entities were denied... Only that some were [unfairly?] targeted.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes, sure, can you please direct me to those organizations that were denied who were in fact eligible, and demonstrate that it was outside the realm of what's considered normal?

Why is denial the only criteria ? How many were harassed to the point of giving up ?

Ok, fine... Can you show me the ones who were harassed to the point of giving up, who were indeed eligible?

The NAACP is eligible.

Due to established precedent everyone is eligible.

 

[Sherry]

You guys aren't doing much to negate anything I've said.

There wouldn't be much point attempting to get you to "see the light" when you've got your head buried so deep in the sand...this is a clear case of political bias.

No, please, I can learn. Show me the light?

Is the narrative something different than what I've stated?

The narrative for you is to try and put the right on the defensive, because it sucks watching your side floundering and needing to be on the defensive. I doubt it will be successful for you on a message board, but it certainly won't be for this administration. Stay tuned for more hearings...and perhaps they can enlighten you.

 

[Ernie S.]

You haven't said anything worthy of refutation. You're just a leftwing hack spewing talking points.

I'm a conscientious observer giving you a conclusion based on available facts, and history tells me I'm nothing short of a voice of reason amid the likes of you.

But in any event, your insults address nothing.

How about commenting on the fact that it took, on average, 3 times as long for right leaning groups' status approval. Can the "voice of reason" reasonably avoid THAT factoid?

 

[Cuyo]

There wouldn't be much point attempting to get you to "see the light" when you've got your head buried so deep in the sand...this is a clear case of political bias.

No, please, I can learn. Show me the light?

Is the narrative something different than what I've stated?

The narrative for you is to try and put the right on the defensive, because it sucks watching your side floundering and needing to be on the defensive. I doubt it will be successful for you on a message board, but it certainly won't be for this administration. Stay tuned for more hearings...and perhaps they can enlighten you.

No, that's false, this isn't even my thread. I'm just giving my opinion like everyone else...

It's being met with a great deal of vitriol, but not much new information.

Do we agree on the facts here? Can we go to summary judgment? Or do you believe there's more to it than what I've stated?

 

[Sherry]

No, please, I can learn. Show me the light?

Is the narrative something different than what I've stated?

The narrative for you is to try and put the right on the defensive, because it sucks watching your side floundering and needing to be on the defensive. I doubt it will be successful for you on a message board, but it certainly won't be for this administration. Stay tuned for more hearings...and perhaps they can enlighten you.

No, that's false, this isn't even my thread. I'm just giving my opinion like everyone else...

It's being met with a great deal of vitriol, but not much new information.

Do we agree on the facts here? Can we go to summary judgment? Or do you believe there's more to it than what I've stated?

Oh please, this thread is tame so far. I see through your antagonistic "opinion", and can even appreciate your strategy...I just don't think it will be effective. You trained us well with the whole racist narrative, and we're less like to jump at your bidding to defend our views. To most people, even silent dems, this went beyond mismanagement by one of the most powerful arms of the government.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, please, I can learn. Show me the light?

Is the narrative something different than what I've stated?

The narrative for you is to try and put the right on the defensive, because it sucks watching your side floundering and needing to be on the defensive. I doubt it will be successful for you on a message board, but it certainly won't be for this administration. Stay tuned for more hearings...and perhaps they can enlighten you.

No, that's false, this isn't even my thread. I'm just giving my opinion like everyone else...

It's being met with a great deal of vitriol, but not much new information.

Do we agree on the facts here? Can we go to summary judgment? Or do you believe there's more to it than what I've stated?

You're rationalizing corruption essentially.

Those are the facts.