Closed Thread
No. You're an honest guy and I trust your motives. But that's how/why this works: get people riled up about something adjacent to the scandal and they help you change the subject.
IRS targeted conservative groups
I think that if you are not willing to impugn my motives, than you likely shouldn't impugn the motives of others either. It could very well be that many of those who are downplaying this scandal feel the way I do, that all of these groups should be asked these types of questions and receive this type of scrutiny before receiving tax-exempt status. If that is what you believe, than it's hard to see this as that outrageous. If you, on the other hand, believe nobody should be asked these questions, and be subject to this type of scrutiny, than the fact that this was done for political purposes becomes that much more egregious. In my case, I think the political targeting was wrong, and inappropriate, but I don't particularly see the process itself as beyond the pale. I don't think it's unwarranted to believe that many who are more liberal in their orientation may see things in the same way, and that it may be for that reason that they don't see this behavior as as terrible as conservatives do. Keep in mind that as a liberal, you generally believe that people should be paying more taxes, and that big-monied entities in particular should be paying more, not less. You are generally against tax loopholes and gimmicks that allow for some to avoid paying taxes. You would generally be skeptical of the concept of these groups, which largely act as political entities, receiving tax-exempt status. Under this line of thinking, downplaying this and seeking to place it in its proper context would not be political. This philosophy is consistent with believing that the type of scrutiny these conservative groups faced is not only warranted but should be expanded.
X
User Lists
I think that if you are not willing to impugn my motives, than you likely shouldn't impugn the motives of others either.
It could very well be that many of those who are downplaying this scandal feel the way I do, that all of these groups should be asked these types of questions and receive this type of scrutiny before receiving tax-exempt status. If that is what you believe, than it's hard to see this as that outrageous. If you, on the other hand, believe nobody should be asked these questions, and be subject to this type of scrutiny, than the fact that this was done for political purposes becomes that much more egregious. In my case, I think the political targeting was wrong, and inappropriate, but I don't particularly see the process itself as beyond the pale. I don't think it's unwarranted to believe that many who are more liberal in their orientation may see things in the same way, and that it may be for that reason that they don't see this behavior as as terrible as conservatives do. Keep in mind that as a liberal, you generally believe that people should be paying more taxes, and that big-monied entities in particular should be paying more, not less. You are generally against tax loopholes and gimmicks that allow for some to avoid paying taxes. You would generally be skeptical of the concept of these groups, which largely act as political entities, receiving tax-exempt status. Under this line of thinking, downplaying this and seeking to place it in its proper context would not be political. This philosophy is consistent with believing that the type of scrutiny these conservative groups faced is not only warranted but should be expanded.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
From your article:
Ok, it's clear that politicians have been using IRS for their gains. And while this article shows hardly any evidence that this was due to the anti-war sermon, I'm not defending any kind of targeting. But this article was clearly just trying to justify the current targeting by bringing up an isolated incident, and saying that it's equivalent.
No one ever apologized to All Saints Episcopal Church for an IRS investigation triggered by an anti war sermon given in 2004.
__________________
Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yeah, investigating one politically active church and not revoking their tax exempt status is on part with denying that status systemically to a whole host of groups, and linking their donor information to political rivals.
Please.
Also, don't ever whine about partisan sources again if you're suddenly fine with linking to op-eds on blatantly liberal commentary sites.
Please.
Also, don't ever whine about partisan sources again if you're suddenly fine with linking to op-eds on blatantly liberal commentary sites.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I was linking to a contemporary comment on the story because I found it right away and it had updated information. The story was well reported at the time in regular news stories. And it isn't the only example of alleged IRS targeting of liberal groups by the Bush Administration. I am sure you are aware of that. And investigating a church on very flimsy grounds is hardly not uncomparable to this situation.
X
User Lists
From your article:
Ok, it's clear that politicians have been using IRS for their gains. And while this article shows hardly any evidence that this was due to the anti-war sermon, I'm not defending any kind of targeting. But this article was clearly just trying to justify the current targeting by bringing up an isolated incident, and saying that it's equivalent.
Ok, it's clear that politicians have been using IRS for their gains. And while this article shows hardly any evidence that this was due to the anti-war sermon, I'm not defending any kind of targeting. But this article was clearly just trying to justify the current targeting by bringing up an isolated incident, and saying that it's equivalent.
I didn't pick the article because I just read about it. It was widely reported at the time on the news.
X
User Lists
Why? Not everyone is equally trustworthy, and some people have a direct stake in changing the subject. And I assume you wouldn't impugn my motives, either, but you didn't hesitate to suggest that some Republicans are being purely opportunistic with this scandal. How is this different?
X
User Lists
Just to make clear, these same kind of allegations of politicization and stonewalling do not exist only in Democratic Administrations.
Members of Congress investigating the dismissals found that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials appeared to be contradicted by internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress was deliberately misled. The White House role in the dismissals remained unclear despite hours of testimony by Attorney General Gonzales and senior Department of Justice staff in congressional committee hearings.[32][33] The Bush administration issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.[34][35][36][37] The origin and evolution of the list of attorneys to be dismissed remained unclear.[38][39][40][41] In response the Inspector General's report in September 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a special prosecutor to determine if administration officials had perjured themselves in testimony to Congress
Members of Congress investigating the dismissals found that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials appeared to be contradicted by internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress was deliberately misled. The White House role in the dismissals remained unclear despite hours of testimony by Attorney General Gonzales and senior Department of Justice staff in congressional committee hearings.[32][33] The Bush administration issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.[34][35][36][37] The origin and evolution of the list of attorneys to be dismissed remained unclear.[38][39][40][41] In response the Inspector General's report in September 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a special prosecutor to determine if administration officials had perjured themselves in testimony to Congress
X
User Lists
I was linking to a contemporary comment on the story because I found it right away and it had updated information. The story was well reported at the time in regular news stories. And it isn't the only example of alleged IRS targeting of liberal groups by the Bush Administration. I am sure you are aware of that. And investigating a church on very flimsy grounds is hardly not uncomparable to this situation.
Just to make clear, these same kind of allegations of politicization and stonewalling do not exist only in Democratic Administrations.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
So many conservatives are using hyperbolic rhetoric that is not justified by the facts that have been presented thus far. It is for that reason that I impugn the motives of some conservatives. In my opinion, it's clear to me that they are exploiting this scandal for political purposes. I also think it's pretty clear when Darrell Issa says that his stated goal is to hold multiple investigations every single week for years what his true motivation in doing this happens to be. To me, there's no other reason to do that other than to obstruct anything meaningful from being done in Washington. You at least seem to be concerned about this based on the merits.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
In fact, let's make that an open question for anyone who cares to address it: give me one reason the White House should resist a special prosecutor.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yeah, it is. They weren't denied their exemption, they weren't part of systematic targeting, and their information wasn't leaked to some rival organization. Trying to draw anything even close to an equivalence is incredibly hacky.
There you do again, always making excuses for Republicans. They already had their tax exemption. And the process went on for two years. Information being leaked by the IRS is still an unproven allegation. Going after a church with no real evidence while as reported at the time conservative churches in well documented speeches made even more overt political statements is an indication they could have been targeted for their political views. What you have been doing during this entire thread is just outrageous. You seize on everything alleged like it is established fact. All we know at this point the IRS office in Cincinatti targeted tea party groups unfairly. We don't know why, who was involved, and how high it goes up. It needs tp be investigated. But you have been acting like a lynch mob leader with the noose ready when the investigation is still in the very early stages.
Funny you should mention that: the Bush administration appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, as well they should have. But for the IRS scandal, the White House is resisting one, even though 76% of those polled agreed that one should be appointed. Why do that? Because their complete innocence would backfire on them somehow?
There you do again, always making excuses for Republicans. They already had their tax exemption. And the process went on for two years. Information being leaked by the IRS is still an unproven allegation. Going after a church with no real evidence while as reported at the time conservative churches in well documented speeches made even more overt political statements is an indication they could have been targeted for their political views. What you have been doing during this entire thread is just outrageous. You seize on everything alleged like it is established fact. All we know at this point the IRS office in Cincinatti targeted tea party groups unfairly. We don't know why, who was involved, and how high it goes up. It needs tp be investigated. But you have been acting like a lynch mob leader with the noose ready when the investigation is still in the very early stages.
Funny you should mention that: the Bush administration appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, as well they should have. But for the IRS scandal, the White House is resisting one, even though 76% of those polled agreed that one should be appointed. Why do that? Because their complete innocence would backfire on them somehow?
X
User Lists
There you do again, always making excuses for Republicans. They already had their tax exemption. And the process went on for two years. Information being leaked by the IRS is still an unproven allegation. Going after a church with no real evidence while as reported at the time conservative churches in well documented speeches made even more overt political statements is an indication they could have been targeted for their political views.
What you have been doing during this entire thread is just outrageous. You seize on everything alleged like it is established fact. All we know at this point the IRS office in Cincinatti targeted tea party groups unfairly. We don't know why, who was involved, and how high it goes up. It needs tp be investigated. But you have been acting like a lynch mob leader with the noose ready when the investigation is still in the very early stages.
I'm sure it's really frustrating that you can't somehow make this about Mitt Romney, but get a grip.The Bush Administration did not immediately appoint a special prosecutor. The pressure got to them and they did. The Obama Administration may eventually do so as well. To suggest they are not appointing one with what is known now because they are afraid is hilarious. Are you even being rational at this point?
Oh, you cite a poll that shows that is what the public wants? And when I do the same thing, your reply is what the public thinks is irrelevant.
Last edited by Yoda; 06-05-13 at 04:44 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Just to make clear, these same kind of allegations of politicization and stonewalling do not exist only in Democratic Administrations.
X
User Lists
Oh, it's easy to understand. It's trying to change the subject, like we were just talking about.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm not really sure how the fact that other administrations have also engaged in similar behavior is relevant to whether or not the behavior itself was appropriate. That's what is the crux of the matter here. People do things all the time that are totally wrong, and immoral, and sometimes a lot of people do these things, but that doesn't excuse an individual from participating in the behavior because others do the wrong thing too. I've never really understand this defense.
X
User Lists
Could have been? That's your evidence that it's comparable to admitted, systematic targeting? And the fact that they actually had their tax exemption and never lost it is irrelevant, even though that's literally the entire thing being fought over in the first place? Terrible.
The TP groups never lost a tax exemption. They were new groups applying for one. The process was the same, a long dragged out investigation taking years. The church was an existing church. The bad publicity the Bush adaministration received for the investigation which was done unlike the tea party groups with everyone watching may have had something to do with them not losing their tax status. And i repeat, it is not the only charges leveled at the Bush Administration about politicizing the IRS. The changed law created a situation that did not exist during the Bush Administration. Yhey did not have those type of groups to go aftereven if they wanted to, so to say it is not comparable, that is due to the changing political and legal lanscape, and not necessarily anything else. But you keep it up, everything Democrats do is bad, when when Reoublicans do it, target a church for an anti war speech, that's okay because Republicans are good and the ends always justifies the means if they are on our side
This is basically just a hyperbolic temper tantrum. Noose? Lynch mob? Yeah, look at the way I'm violently posting updates and threateningly providing sources. I'm sure it's really frustrating that you can't somehow make this about Mitt Romney, but get a grip.
Look what you are doing. You post something like it is an actual fact when most of the time it is an allegation and not one with much behind it. You post silliness like how how often someone visited the President when there is zero evidence at this point that person had pror knowledge of the scandal, and so on. None of thei is presented in a thoughtful manner, which you have often done in the past. You have flipped over into cuckoo land on this, acting outraged and making wild accusations with little at this point to go on. And you know if I or anyone else was posting like this and a Republican was in the White House, you would be strenuously defending o minimizing it.
And oh, that thing about Bush appointing a special prosecutor, that was a good one. it almost got by me. Who was the target in that scandal? The Justice Department including the Attorney General!
Then what's the reason? That was the question.
They will do it if they have to do with and not before. As is the case of all administrations, no exceptions. Because you never know what you get with a special prosecutor. Some are professionals who conduct an investigation based on what they were hired. But some try to turn it into a career and abandon the original investigation because it is not producing results then go off into fishing expeditions, which might produce something, but are far afield from the original probe. No administratiom welcomes the special attention of a special prosecutor because an ambitious one or a partisan one or an egotistical one can create its own problems.
Ding ding ding. That's exactly why I cited it. Try to keep up. You can't alternate conveniently between a "who cares?" attitude when you think the polls are one way and a dogged pursuit of the facts, public perception be damned, when they're another way.
The TP groups never lost a tax exemption. They were new groups applying for one. The process was the same, a long dragged out investigation taking years. The church was an existing church. The bad publicity the Bush adaministration received for the investigation which was done unlike the tea party groups with everyone watching may have had something to do with them not losing their tax status. And i repeat, it is not the only charges leveled at the Bush Administration about politicizing the IRS. The changed law created a situation that did not exist during the Bush Administration. Yhey did not have those type of groups to go aftereven if they wanted to, so to say it is not comparable, that is due to the changing political and legal lanscape, and not necessarily anything else. But you keep it up, everything Democrats do is bad, when when Reoublicans do it, target a church for an anti war speech, that's okay because Republicans are good and the ends always justifies the means if they are on our side
This is basically just a hyperbolic temper tantrum. Noose? Lynch mob? Yeah, look at the way I'm violently posting updates and threateningly providing sources.
I'm sure it's really frustrating that you can't somehow make this about Mitt Romney, but get a grip.Look what you are doing. You post something like it is an actual fact when most of the time it is an allegation and not one with much behind it. You post silliness like how how often someone visited the President when there is zero evidence at this point that person had pror knowledge of the scandal, and so on. None of thei is presented in a thoughtful manner, which you have often done in the past. You have flipped over into cuckoo land on this, acting outraged and making wild accusations with little at this point to go on. And you know if I or anyone else was posting like this and a Republican was in the White House, you would be strenuously defending o minimizing it.
And oh, that thing about Bush appointing a special prosecutor, that was a good one. it almost got by me. Who was the target in that scandal? The Justice Department including the Attorney General!
Then what's the reason? That was the question.
They will do it if they have to do with and not before. As is the case of all administrations, no exceptions. Because you never know what you get with a special prosecutor. Some are professionals who conduct an investigation based on what they were hired. But some try to turn it into a career and abandon the original investigation because it is not producing results then go off into fishing expeditions, which might produce something, but are far afield from the original probe. No administratiom welcomes the special attention of a special prosecutor because an ambitious one or a partisan one or an egotistical one can create its own problems.
Ding ding ding. That's exactly why I cited it. Try to keep up. You can't alternate conveniently between a "who cares?" attitude when you think the polls are one way and a dogged pursuit of the facts, public perception be damned, when they're another way.
X