Lois Lerner Admits-2010 She Was Told To Target Conservative Groups

[The Rabbi]

We have several omissions.

First, we do not know how many left wing groups were set aside for extra scrutiny.

Second, we do not know how many total groups applied for tax exempt status during the period in question. The timeframe must match up with the timeframe in which it is claimed right wing groups were targeted.

Third, we do not know what proportion of the applications were from right wing groups, and what proportion were from left wing groups.

Consequently, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know if right wing groups were targeted out of proportion to their representation.

That no one is even asking these questions indicates they are, once again, not the slightest bit interested in discerning the truth.


Truth is always the first casualty in partisan hackery.

The answers are:
None
And all the rest are irrelevant.

We know that conservative groups received special treatment and were targeted for such. We know that treatment had an effect, and a negative one for them.
That in itself is a violation of both due process and equal protection.

Some things really are that simple.

 

[depotoo]

We have several omissions.

First, we do not know how many left wing groups were set aside for extra scrutiny.

Second, we do not know how many total groups applied for tax exempt status during the period in question. The timeframe must match up with the timeframe in which it is claimed right wing groups were targeted.

Third, we do not know what proportion of the applications were from right wing groups, and what proportion were from left wing groups.

Consequently, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know if right wing groups were targeted out of proportion to their representation.

That no one is even asking these questions indicates they are, once again, not the slightest bit interested in discerning the truth.


Truth is always the first casualty in partisan hackery.

The only 3 groups that came forward were scrutinized AFTER the IRS knew they were being investigated and their letters of some small amount of scrutiny were dated AFTER the IRS knew they were being investigated. Just way tooo convenient. And you and I both know, if you will be honest, if indeed there were many more left leaning groups that were sent to the office of the attorney to be scrutinized and delayed as long as 3 years, they would be shouted about all over the media.

 

[g5000]

We have several omissions.

First, we do not know how many left wing groups were set aside for extra scrutiny.

Second, we do not know how many total groups applied for tax exempt status during the period in question. The timeframe must match up with the timeframe in which it is claimed right wing groups were targeted.

Third, we do not know what proportion of the applications were from right wing groups, and what proportion were from left wing groups.

Consequently, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know if right wing groups were targeted out of proportion to their representation.

That no one is even asking these questions indicates they are, once again, not the slightest bit interested in discerning the truth.


Truth is always the first casualty in partisan hackery.

The answers are:
None
And all the rest are irrelevant.

Wow. You haven't a logical bone in your body!

We know that conservative groups received special treatment and were targeted for such. We know that treatment had an effect, and a negative one for them.
That in itself is a violation of both due process and equal protection.

Some things really are that simple.

You have no evidence to support this asssertion without the missing facts I outlined above. You just want to believe it is true, so you assume it is.

 

[g5000]

Just like the video. You want to believe the woman says she was ordered to target right wing groups, and so you assume that's what is in the video.

You could not possibly have watched it and then believed that is what she said unless you are seriously delusional and hallucinating things that are not there.

Not kidding.

 

[The Rabbi]

We have several omissions.

First, we do not know how many left wing groups were set aside for extra scrutiny.

Second, we do not know how many total groups applied for tax exempt status during the period in question. The timeframe must match up with the timeframe in which it is claimed right wing groups were targeted.

Third, we do not know what proportion of the applications were from right wing groups, and what proportion were from left wing groups.

Consequently, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know if right wing groups were targeted out of proportion to their representation.

That no one is even asking these questions indicates they are, once again, not the slightest bit interested in discerning the truth.


Truth is always the first casualty in partisan hackery.

The answers are:
None
And all the rest are irrelevant.

Wow. You haven't a logical bone in your body!

We know that conservative groups received special treatment and were targeted for such. We know that treatment had an effect, and a negative one for them.
That in itself is a violation of both due process and equal protection.

Some things really are that simple.

You have no evidence to support this asssertion without the missing facts I outlined above. You just want to believe it is true, so you assume it is.

No, we know these things are true. This has been established already. Even teh Democrats are not making the excuse that everyone got targeted. They wanted to say the delays were the result of a huge number of new applications. We know that is a lie too.
Every account and excuse made by the administration and the Democrats has been shown to be a lie.

 

[JoeB131]

Not really.

She just pointed out that Citizens United decision allowed this kind of fraud, and the FEC was powerless to stop it unless the IRS caught the fraud.

You guys are just upset the IRS caught the fraud.

YOu know, there isn't a constitutational right to a tax exemption, right?

yeah, they were so fraudulent, none got denied, just held for a year or so.

Most were told they needed additional documention to prove they were what they said they were, and most couldn't provide it.

 

[Geaux4it]

Just like the video. You want to believe the woman says she was ordered to target right wing groups, and so you assume that's what is in the video.

You could not possibly have watched it and then believed that is what she said unless you are seriously delusional and hallucinating things that are not there.

Not kidding.

What did you hear her say?

-Geaux

 

[OKTexas]

Not really.

She just pointed out that Citizens United decision allowed this kind of fraud, and the FEC was powerless to stop it unless the IRS caught the fraud.

You guys are just upset the IRS caught the fraud.

YOu know, there isn't a constitutational right to a tax exemption, right?

Could you provide a link substantiating this so called fraud?

 

[blackhawk]

I remember when this so called phony scandal was the work of two rouge I.R.S. agents my how things have changed.

 

[blackhawk]

Just like the video. You want to believe the woman says she was ordered to target right wing groups, and so you assume that's what is in the video.

You could not possibly have watched it and then believed that is what she said unless you are seriously delusional and hallucinating things that are not there.

Not kidding.

What did you hear her say?

-Geaux

When this scandal first broke I remember hearing the I.R.S. admit they did this I also remember the President calling the I.R.S. actions outrageous. Funny how we have gone from admitting and outrageous to phony.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[OKTexas]

Not really.

She just pointed out that Citizens United decision allowed this kind of fraud, and the FEC was powerless to stop it unless the IRS caught the fraud.

You guys are just upset the IRS caught the fraud.

YOu know, there isn't a constitutational right to a tax exemption, right?

yeah, they were so fraudulent, none got denied, just held for a year or so.

Most were told they needed additional documention to prove they were what they said they were, and most couldn't provide it.

Justify the IRS the asking for the content of members prayers of one organization and explain how that is not a breach of the 1st Amendment then you may gain a small bit of credibility.

 

[JoeB131]

yeah, they were so fraudulent, none got denied, just held for a year or so.

Most were told they needed additional documention to prove they were what they said they were, and most couldn't provide it.

Justify the IRS the asking for the content of members prayers of one organization and explain how that is not a breach of the 1st Amendment then you may gain a small bit of credibility.

Hey, I don't think Churches should be getting tax exemptions to start with.

We need to tax the fuck out of them and then apply the consumer fraud laws to them.

 

[francoHFW]

The TP was new, so there were MANY more TP orgs to be looked into. End of story, hater dupes.

 

[francoHFW]

oh, and ANOTHER BS spin Issa witch hunt. And Pub Propaganda machine smear job. A disgrace.

 

[Geaux4it]

oh, and ANOTHER BS spin Issa witch hunt. And Pub Propaganda machine smear job. A disgrace.

The disgrace works part time in the oval office

I would rather have a sister in the house of ill-repute than to have a brother that voted for Adolf Obama

-Geaux

 

[Annie]

Not really.

She just pointed out that Citizens United decision allowed this kind of fraud, and the FEC was powerless to stop it unless the IRS caught the fraud.

You guys are just upset the IRS caught the fraud.

YOu know, there isn't a constitutational right to a tax exemption, right?

What fraud? In some cases they've been in limbo regard decisions on status, in spite of numerous audits. Still not decisions and more audits are a constant thread. So, shockingly some have withdrawn.

I guess that really is the wet dream of the left, total annihilation of opposition. While the 'right' might not be around to witness is, the next step is cannibalism. The left will eat their own, on degrees of correctness.

 

[BobPlumb]

The election is over so "at this point what difference does it make?"

 

[The Rabbi]

Most were told they needed additional documention to prove they were what they said they were, and most couldn't provide it.

Justify the IRS the asking for the content of members prayers of one organization and explain how that is not a breach of the 1st Amendment then you may gain a small bit of credibility.

Hey, I don't think Churches should be getting tax exemptions to start with.

We need to tax the fuck out of them and then apply the consumer fraud laws to them.

Yes we all know yoi'd like to shred the Constitution, like your god, Obama.
BUt frankly no one gives a shit what an ignorant poorly educated rube like you thinks.

 

[OKTexas]

Most were told they needed additional documention to prove they were what they said they were, and most couldn't provide it.

Justify the IRS the asking for the content of members prayers of one organization and explain how that is not a breach of the 1st Amendment then you may gain a small bit of credibility.

Hey, I don't think Churches should be getting tax exemptions to start with.

We need to tax the fuck out of them and then apply the consumer fraud laws to them.

Wasn't a church, care to try again?