12-09-2013 07:20 PM
71 123
tools
  1. palandri's Avatar
    Man, talk about kool -aid. You drank all of the liberals' supply!
    And no, all groups weren't targeted, just conservative groups. IRS admitted as much.

    Sent from my awesome Droid Maxx by Android Central app.
    That is incorrect. It wasn't just conservative groups.
    msndrstood likes this.
    12-03-2013 09:04 AM
  2. pappy53's Avatar
    That is incorrect. It wasn't just conservative groups.
    It is absolutely correct. Any liberal groups were approved fairly quick, not targeted, and still not approved after 2 years.

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
    12-03-2013 09:07 AM
  3. palandri's Avatar
    It is absolutely correct. Any liberal groups were approved fairly quick, not targeted, and still not approved after 2 years.

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
    All you have to do is google, "were liberal groups targeted by the IRS?" and then draw your own conclusions.
    12-03-2013 09:14 AM
  4. palandri's Avatar
    And Fox is the #1 rated cable news show. Crap? Lol!
    Have you noticed the word, "cable" is plunked in there? Have you ever compared Fox News to CBS?, NBC? or ABC? Take out the word, "cable" and you'll see what happens.
    12-03-2013 09:18 AM
  5. pappy53's Avatar
    All you have to do is google, "were liberal groups targeted by the IRS?" and then draw your own conclusions.
    I don't need to google anything. I watched the hearings on it. Why do you think Lois Lerner pleaded the fifth, and then retired?

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
    12-03-2013 09:38 AM
  6. palandri's Avatar
    I don't need to google anything. I watched the hearings on it. Why do you think Lois Lerner pleaded the fifth, and then retired?

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
    Let me tell you what happened to me when I was 17. I got a job working in a department store shipping out mail orders. A few days after I started, a woman called the store and complained she only received 4 flatware settings and she ordered 5. I received a written warning for being carelessness by the operations manager and send the woman and additional flatware setting. Then about 4 days after that, a woman called and said she only received 4 place setting and she ordered 5. It was my second mistake during my probationary period and I was fired by the operations manager..

    Another employee got suspicious and checked out the UPS weight of the flatware and the place settings I sent out. Each of these shipments I sent out equaled the weight of 5 flatware and 5 place settings not 4. I guess the operations manager didn't have all the facts.
    12-03-2013 10:20 AM
  7. NoYankees44's Avatar
    All you have to do is google, "were liberal groups targeted by the IRS?" and then draw your own conclusions.
    With 20min or less of searching:
    IRS did also target the term "Progressive"
    One report also stated that the terms "ACORN" and "Emerge" were also targeted, but these are liberal groups that were known for unethical practices and arguably should have been on the list.

    The term "progressive" is not a term exclusive to liberal groups. The documentation for this term and the other "liberal" terms were also not presented in the original audit, which is odd to say the least.

    The chart presented here:IRS scoreboard: 100 percent of targeted liberal groups were approved, conservatives languished « The Greenroom

    JOURNALISM: It's about priorities-9411076165_cae9631d59.jpg

    This chart paints a very bad picture for the "liberal groups were also targeted" argument. Someone else will have to search more to check its validity.



    Honestly though, what does it matter which group or why? What SHOULD matter is that our government is targeting groups bases on their beliefs. It would not **** me off any less if the groups were liberal. Because guess what, no matter whether you agree or disagree with the groups being targeted this time, next time it could be yours...
    palandri likes this.
    12-03-2013 10:33 AM
  8. palandri's Avatar
    ...Honestly though, what does it matter which group or why? What SHOULD matter is that our government is targeting groups bases on their beliefs. It would not **** me off any less if the groups were liberal. Because guess what, no matter whether you agree or disagree with the groups being targeted this time, next time it could be yours...
    LOL! I didn't even try googling that when I said it, but nice work! I remember seeing a chart showing groups having the word, "occupy" were heavily targeted.

    You make a very a valid point about any group being targeted. To be honest, I think tax exempt should just be eliminated all together, but that's just my opinion. I just think it's too easy to abuse. Then we see these investigations by news channels where a charitable agency is giving back like 10% of what they take in, which further enforces my opinion.
    12-03-2013 11:15 AM
  9. NoYankees44's Avatar
    LOL! I didn't even try googling that when I said it, but nice work! I remember seeing a chart showing groups having the word, "occupy" were heavily targeted.

    You make a very a valid point about any group being targeted. To be honest, I think tax exempt should just be eliminated all together, but that's just my opinion. I just think it's to easy to abuse. Then we see these investigations by news channels where a charitable agency is giving back like 10% of what they take in, which further enforces my opinion.
    I am not sure if exempt status should be eliminated, but a lot of clarification and dictation is desired.
    palandri likes this.
    12-03-2013 11:26 AM
  10. palandri's Avatar
    I am not sure if exempt status should be eliminated, but a lot of clarification and dictation is desired.
    I understand what you're saying, but I've just read and have seen too many cases of abuse over the years. I even remember reading something about that family on TV, 19 kids and counting, or something like that. They claim their house is a church by having quiver (their religion) meetings there, so they can claim it's a church, or the house on "C" Street, or people who buy a $5K painting, have it appraised for $50K and then give it to some endowment for the arts and take $50K deduction.
    12-03-2013 11:49 AM
  11. Timelessblur's Avatar
    With 20min or less of searching:
    IRS did also target the term "Progressive"
    One report also stated that the terms "ACORN" and "Emerge" were also targeted, but these are liberal groups that were known for unethical practices and arguably should have been on the list.

    The term "progressive" is not a term exclusive to liberal groups. The documentation for this term and the other "liberal" terms were also not presented in the original audit, which is odd to say the least.

    The chart presented here:IRS scoreboard: 100 percent of “targeted” liberal groups were approved, conservatives languished « The Greenroom

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9411076165_cae9631d59.jpg 
Views:	36 
Size:	53.3 KB 
ID:	94902

    This chart paints a very bad picture for the "liberal groups were also targeted" argument. Someone else will have to search more to check its validity.



    Honestly though, what does it matter which group or why? What SHOULD matter is that our government is targeting groups bases on their beliefs. It would not **** me off any less if the groups were liberal. Because guess what, no matter whether you agree or disagree with the groups being targeted this time, next time it could be yours...
    I did do a little googling of my own. While your image looks good I end up finding it at was from a strong right wing conservative site that on a quick scan was pretty much just bash Democrats. Another source I found is below.



    article explaining it break down.
    Proof the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives - Garance Franke-Ruta - The Atlantic
    msndrstood likes this.
    12-03-2013 11:40 PM
  12. pappy53's Avatar
    I did do a little googling of my own. While your image looks good I end up finding it at was from a strong right wing conservative site that on a quick scan was pretty much just bash Democrats. Another source I found is below.

    http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...329-123575.png

    article explaining it break down.
    Proof the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives - Garance Franke-Ruta - The Atlantic
    The IRS admitted to targeting conservative groups. Why keep trying to find otherwise, when they admitted it?

    Sent from my awesome Droid Maxx by Android Central app.
    12-04-2013 09:23 AM
  13. Rule9's Avatar
    There was a request of someone in another thread to call Obama by his actual name, not Obummer or whatever it was. I agree with that request and would request you do the same with Fox. Actually, across the board, I think we should all use proper names here, not insulting nicknames. All it does is make the person writing it sound bad and takes away pretty much any credibility of the post.
    Whether or not you like or dislike the content or opinions of those posts, freedom of speech needs to stop taking a back seat to these requests.

    Sent from my Sony Xperia Z1
    12-04-2013 09:30 AM
  14. Timelessblur's Avatar
    The IRS admitted to targeting conservative groups. Why keep trying to find otherwise, when they admitted it?

    Sent from my awesome Droid Maxx by Android Central app.
    Umm because par as normal in our media that quote of them is taken out of context.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    12-04-2013 09:58 AM
  15. pappy53's Avatar
    Umm because par as normal in our media that quote of them is taken out of context.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Kinda hard to take a live admission out of context.

    Sent from my awesome Droid Maxx by Android Central app.
    12-04-2013 10:29 AM
  16. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Whether or not you like or dislike the content or opinions of those posts, freedom of speech needs to stop taking a back seat to these requests.

    Sent from my Sony Xperia Z1
    With freedom comes responsibility you know. If anyone wants to have a serious debate, then they need to be responsible enough to not pull silly antics like that. You wouldn't ever see that kind of stunt allowed in formal debate.

    But if people insist on invalidating their debate by not having the respect to use proper names under the claim of right to free speech, then the rest of us have the right to not listen. Which I generally don't after making such request.
    msndrstood likes this.
    12-04-2013 10:36 AM
  17. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Kinda hard to take a live admission out of context.

    Sent from my awesome Droid Maxx by Android Central app.
    Umm yes it can be.

    But we have already shown facts prove otherwise.
    Your first post on the matter shows you are adding in facts. We have shown proof saying other wise but facts do not matter to you just like they seem not to matter to Fox news.
    12-04-2013 10:43 AM
  18. pappy53's Avatar
    Umm yes it can be.

    But we have already shown facts prove otherwise.
    Your first post on the matter shows you are adding in facts. We have shown proof saying other wise but facts do not matter to you just like they seem not to matter to Fox news.
    They admitted it on live national TV. How much more straightforward can it be? You can't prove otherwise on that.

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
    12-04-2013 10:47 AM
  19. llamabreath's Avatar
    .... taken out of context.
    (Just like the thirty-something quotes of Obama saying we can keep our health plans.)

    Herein lies the ol' Taken Out of Context Crutch -






    (⊙_⊙) I think people that take the time out of their day (or night) to think of some clever, memorable or just plain dumb signature probably have way too much time on their collective hands and they should get back to work and earn their paycheck, instead of just expecting their paycheck. People like this make me sick to my stomach.
    12-04-2013 10:54 AM
  20. Timelessblur's Avatar
    They admitted it on live national TV. How much more straightforward can it be? You can't prove otherwise on that.

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
    Ok, keep sticking to that argument. We have shown proof saying other wise. Anything just on TV has to be taken with a grain of salt. Yes they admitted to targeting conservative groups. But they did not say it was just conservative groups.

    But keep sticking to that and ignore what the facts are saying.
    There is no getting around the facts saying other wise as what has been shown multiple times.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    12-04-2013 11:24 AM
  21. pappy53's Avatar
    It is impossible to reason with a left wing liberal. If Obama said the sky was falling they would run indoors.

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
    12-04-2013 11:27 AM
  22. Aquila's Avatar
    Umm yes it can be.

    But we have already shown facts prove otherwise.
    Your first post on the matter shows you are adding in facts. We have shown proof saying other wise but facts do not matter to you just like they seem not to matter to Fox news.
    They admitted it on live national TV. How much more straightforward can it be? You can't prove otherwise on that.
    Why do additional facts not change the explanation? Or at least warrant reconsideration of the explanation in light of the new evidence?

    This is seriously like someone flipping a coin 300 times and saying, "sometimes it landed heads, and sometimes it landed tails", followed shortly by the media running a headline and weeks of coverage around, "Coin tosser tosses pennies and they landed tails!" Yeah, they did say sometimes it was tails, but they also said sometimes it was heads. Ignoring half of that statement changes the story in a way that is both contextually incorrect and deliberately misleading unless you expect your audience to infer that sometimes it was heads, which in this case clearly people are not getting that inference, because even with proof of many types of groups being processed, an argument is still being made that ignores the additional facts.
    12-04-2013 11:28 AM
  23. Aquila's Avatar
    Whether or not you like or dislike the content or opinions of those posts, freedom of speech needs to stop taking a back seat to these requests.
    At the end of the day within private forums, the agreement to be respectful to each other trumps any concept of speech/expression. The relevant parts of the forum rules are P.U.P.P.A.H (extra emphasis on "Be Polite"), along with Forum Etiquette (User Proper Grammar & Spelling) and the obvious point associated rules against Personal Attacks or Insults, Trolling, Disruptive Posting and Discrimination or Harassment.

    The number one priority with this request is trying to keep a productive and on topic, respectful conversation where members are not discouraged from participation by the inappropriate conduct of a few members. Most people automatically post within these guidelines so it's often a non issue, but there have been repeated requests within the politics forums that people be reminded of their agreement to abide with the spirit of the Community Rules and Guidelines.
    12-04-2013 11:33 AM
  24. pappy53's Avatar
    So, 104-7 looked at, and 46% compared to 100% approval is not targeting? And 54% still outstanding after 2 or 3 years? It doesn't take a rocket scientist.....
    12-04-2013 11:40 AM
  25. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I did do a little googling of my own. While your image looks good I end up finding it at was from a strong right wing conservative site that on a quick scan was pretty much just bash Democrats. Another source I found is below.

    http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...329-123575.png

    article explaining it break down.
    Proof the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives - Garance Franke-Ruta - The Atlantic
    Actually you presented no evedience to dispute my source. You just stated it was a conservative leaning site(like that means something?).

    The source you presented was an analysis of those that made it through. By law, all the ones that did not make it through cannot be released. However, I think that 1/3 of the people flagged just for having "Tea Party" or like term in the NAME speaks loudly about prioreties. The other 2/3's were just note as obviously conservative or otherwise.

    Here is the audit findings:

    Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review

    "WHAT TIGTA FOUND

    The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax‑exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.

    Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months. This was due to delays in receiving assistance from the Exempt Organizations function Headquarters office. For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some for more than three years and crossing two election cycles).

    More than 20 months after the initial case was identified, processing the cases began in earnest. Many organizations received requests for additional information from the IRS that included unnecessary, burdensome questions (e.g., lists of past and future donors). The IRS later informed some organizations that they did not need to provide previously requested information. IRS officials stated that any donor information received in response to a request from its Determinations Unit was later destroyed."

    http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/congre...ess_051713.pdf
    "Results of Review

    In summary, we found that all three allegations were substantiated. The IRS used
    inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying
    for tax-exempt status based upon their*names or policy positions instead of indications of
    potential political campaign intervention. Because of ineffective management by IRS
    officials: 1) inappropriate criteria were developed and stayed in place for a total of more
    than 18 months, 2) there were substantial delays in processing certain applications, and
    3) unnecessary information requests were issued to the organizations. "



    Doesn't get much more factual that that...
    12-04-2013 11:41 AM
71 123

Similar Threads

  1. It is still time to buy an HTC one ?
    By lurkerzz in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-29-2013, 05:57 PM
  2. Samsung Galaxy Note 3 - Questions about s-pen writing?
    By dragoro in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 3
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-26-2013, 11:29 AM
  3. ART - Where is it?
    By capnfatpants in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2012)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-26-2013, 09:19 AM
  4. My Note 3 T-Mobile phone Keeps Rebooting When I turn it off and then on again
    By Angel Martinez3 in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-26-2013, 09:00 AM
  5. Republic Wireless and Moto X: Yes It's Amazing
    By michaels_epp in forum Moto X (2013)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-25-2013, 08:45 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD