DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: subrob1967
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
It's been known for well over a year that groups from both sides were targeted.
Sorry Ken, but as usual, you're wrong about the facts.
From your link:
quote:
The Treasury inspector general's office said Thursday that while the Internal Revenue Service screened both progressive and conservative groups between 2010 and 2012, the latter faced more scrutiny.
Groups from both sides were targeted (what Ken stated).
Conservative groups faced more scrutiny. Some might gloss over that by noting (correctly) that both sides were targeted, and that more liberal groups were denied status.
All applications should be scrutinized equally, regardless of which way they lean politically. Neither side should be "targeted." That conservative groups were "targeted" and most still were granted status seems to show that the increased scrutiny wasn't necessary.
I think the bigger issue was that the application process was longer than it should have been. It's possible that was the entire purpose, too. Even if granting status is still done, making it more difficult for one group over another for subjective reasons is wrong. That's what seems to be what happened.
Ken was correct, as difficult as that might be to admit (it just seems so wrong because it's so rare).
Actually in this case all political groups should be targeted since this tax status specifically excludes political groups.
No, Ken. All applications should be checked into. There should be no "targeting" (wouldn't that be profiling?) of any group, Liberal, Progressive, Conservative, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, Librarian, etc. It seems there were some groups profiled, and those groups were subject to extra scrutiny. Some were simply delayed for over a year. Regardless of which political bent the groups seemed to follow, that's wrong. If the DOJ was complicit in a scheme to give extra scrutiny to seemingly conservative groups makes it even worse. It may not have anything to do with Obama (and I don't think it does), but if the DOJ was involved, Holder is likely to be complicit, and should be held accountable.
I'll repeat, the tax status these groups were applying for is not for political groups so none of the application should have been approved at all so all of the groups should have been targeted for extra scrutiny and turned down because that is the law.
No, Ken. They should not have been targeted. That's profiling, and that's a no no. Don't you know that? Every application should be checked. Every single one. If something fishy pops up, then there should be more of an investigation. Putting together a list of words that will provoke extra investigation isn't applying laws equally.
And, working with the DoJ to trump up bullshit reasons for extra investigation isn't applying the laws equally, either.
Shouldn't the eyes of justice be blind?
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: DOJ / IRS coordinated policy to investigate Tea Par... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread