The IRS gave scrutiny to requests for tax exempt status to the terms “occupy” and “progressive” and to issues of medical marijuana and groups advocating on Obamacare.
The only reason the “scandal” appeared to be partisan is that Darrell Issa specifically asked the Inspector General for a report limited to IRS actions pertaining to conservative groups.
Darrell Issa is a lowlife fucking douchbag. His credibility is done.
We always knew that there were progressive groups that were examined also. As I understand it, though, it remains true that fewer of them faced scrutiny, they could be (and were) quickly approved by the line reviewers, while all of the Tea Party applications were sent upward to be held separately and were not approved until much later (i.e., after the election). It’s thus not clear to me why this new line of argument is saying that the scandal is deflated.
There were fewer liberal groups created, therefore fewer would be scrutinized. Unless you’re talking percentages, I don’t know. Still doesn’t justify the fake outrage over the so-called “scandal”. Also, I’d scrutinize anti-tax, anti-government groups more so than progressive anti-Wall Street groups or environmental ones. If the baggers wanted to be anti-government, they should be prepared for more government scrutiny
If I query a database as to the number of times that “42” appears, I can’t say that there are no "37"s in the data.
Unless I’m misunderstanding the matter, the question about the actual treatment of “progressive” groups was not queried.
Shouldn’t you have that info before calling Congressional hearings?
And a great big goose egg for you! Our First Amendment’s protection of peaceable assembly requires the government to suffer the outrage of permitting opposition groups to exist without further regulatory burdens imposed on them due to their opposition status.
This is, quite plainly, the very gravamen of the right’s objection (the goverment targeted us because we opposed Obama’s administration). From this remark, it appears you are conceding that this is indeed the case.
The First Amendment says nothing about tax exempt status.
As to the OP, if there were a conscious plan to subject conservative groups to greater scrutiny, it wouldn’t be surprising if a few liberal groups were thrown in for a bit of plausible deniability.
The questions are: (1) Were more conservative groups selected for review, proportionally, than liberal groups, and (2) Was the inquiry process to which conservative groups were subjected more searching and more burdensome than those liberal group were put through?
Did anyone really think that the IRS thing or the Benghazi thing had any real traction? Agree or disagree with Obama, did anyone SERIOUSLY think he was stupid enough to get involved in wholesale coverups?
The AP and CBS spying, maybe, maybe, maybe, but even then, I doubt it. I don’t agree with the Pres, but this stuff doesn’t rise to a worthy level to tar a president.
The First Amendment prohibits the government from affording regulatory favorable treatment (or imposing heightened regulatory burdens) according to viewpoint. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (state of Alabama could not use state not-for-profit corporations law to require the NAACP to disclose its membership lists).
Surprising, isn’t it, that Issa didn’t ask for information suitable to answering your questions. He requested a report that is thoroughly useless in determining if conservative groups got greater scrutiny than progressive groups, and you fucking well know that wasn’t an accident.
No, it’s not surprising of course. This has always been the purview of the House Government Oversight Committee when the House and the Presidency are controlled by different parties. I agree it’s all kind of sideshowy. Sometimes it does turn up a significant nugget, and it would be nice if there were some less partisan way of further investigating it. But how would that work? An unelected super-bureaucracy to supervise the regular bureaucracy? Even apportionment of Republicans and Democrats (which, of course, means there’s a huge gaping oversight-lacuna when it comes to a third party that might challenge these two entrenched groups)? Also, would it even make sense to give Party X a one-half representation on the committee if Party Y, say, holds 95% of the seats in the body?
Basically, the whole point of the sideshow is to get under your skin. I mean, apart from the firing of one very high government executive, not much has changed. If you are looking for an official declaration that “THE TEA PARTY WAS WRONG ABOUT THE IRS SCANDAL” from God on High, you’re going to be waiting a long time.
Basically, the best voters can do is consider the source and support monetarily the efforts of investigative journalism.
I dunno, maybe the Republicans can quit having their entire legislative agenda being “Fuck Obama” and govern with a shred of integrity.
No, you don’t get to make idiotic accusations for the hell of it. Liberal groups were also targeted. Plus, we know the people who did it were self-identified conservative staffers. Therefore, no plausible deniability necessary: there was absolutely no conspiracy to target conservative groups over liberal ones. All conservative groups are scrutinized simply due to luck or their anti-government status. Besides, a couple of low-level staffers doings have no bearing on Obama, and that’s what Issa was trying to prove. He’s an idiot, so are conservatives who think this is some scandal. Its really nothing more than that
Yes, but that’s not only not the issue here, it’s not even close to the issue here. The government is not providing favorable treatment, it’s simply investigating to make sure that tax-exempt status is granted accurately.
Go shit in some other thread. That isn’t what he said. He said that if you start an organization about how evil taxes are, and you go on and on about how you should avoid paying any taxes you can, you are going to get inspected to see if you are avoiding taxes illegally.
There was absolutely nothing in there about the Obama administration at all, and the fact that you brought it up makes me wonder if you’ve been lying about being liberal all this time. Stop stealing conservative tactics.
And stop trying to hijack the thread from the original topic. Even if you weren’t dealing with a strawman you made up, the post you are responding to had nothing to do with the thread. I know most other Dopers can’t tell when someone hijacks a thread so that they can avoid the main topic, but I can tell.
The topic is the revelation that Issa specifically asked for only conservatives that were targeted, not liberals. Even if it turns out that conservatives were unfairly targeted, Issa couldn’t have known that before starting this scandal.
Guys, please don’t fall for his misdirection.
Hurrray!!! BigT is here to save the day!
Will do, Sir!
So, when seeking a search warrant for marijuana possession, the state’s attorney can use, without more, a person’s membership in NORML? Or even, considering the Libertarian Party’s advocacy for the legalization of marijuana, membership in that organization?
Or if someone has signed a petition advocating for liberalized immigration laws, that entitles the government to search their home to see if he is harboring illegal immigrants? Or to investigate their business to see if they are employing them?
Or if a search gave a monetary contribution to the Servicemembers’ Legal Defense Network a few years ago, is that an adequate basis to institute DADT proceedings?
Only in the mind of James O’Keefe (of ACORN video fame) and those liberals manqués who seem to believe his methods were sure (O’Keefe just erred in choosing his targets).
Advocacy for a change in a law, in free, democratic societies, fails to provide even a scintilla of evidence of criminal violation. This is the fundamental protection of the First Amendment. That you are incapable (or more likely, unwilling) of making this distinction reveals that nobody ought to look to you for guidance on what is real-deal abuse of government authority and what is a sideshow.
Hey, maybe I did screw you over. But what about you, hmmmmm? It wasn’t very nice to suspect me and hold this investigation that ended up revealing how I screwed you over! As matter of fact, I think you owe me a great big apology!
Needless to say, this argument is beyond fatuous. You can’t even argue, “Well Rep. Issa’s initiation of the investigation was entirely baseless.” The IRS is a creature of the Congress, accordingly, Congress can investigate any of the federal agencies for no better reason that they thought it was a really neat idea while taking a dump. Oversight and direction of the federal government is quite literally the function of Congress.
Issa’s initiation of the investigation was entirely baseless
Wow, turns out someone CAN argue that. Who knew?
This is the most succinct and realistic summary of the current state of affairs that I’ve ever read anywhere.
Well, whoever said you couldn’t is obviously ‘beyond fatuous’.