[sup][sup][sup][/sup][/sup][/sup]
:dubious:
Stop trying to hijack this thread with your smileys. BigT ordered it so.
:smack:
Ahem, perhaps you need to take a look at this:
<snip>
So, would you like to apologize to Mr. Issa? Or should the discussion now move to your own credibility?
So, for you, facts that shed light are “misdirection”. Ha!
At least there was no coverage charge for this bit of comedy.
A question from the admirable Mr. Josh Marshall, head nagger in charge over at Talking Points Memo, without which no citizen can hope to be well informed…
As to the question of whether or not Mr. Marshall’s credibility stands favorably in comparison to the “Hon.” Mr. Issa or that legendary fountain of candor, the Washington Times, is a question I will set aside for the moment.
Sometimes you catch a fish on a fishing expedition.
In this case that fish turned out to be a red herring.
Now we know who creaated teh filters and why, I am reasonably convinced that there was no partisanship involved, even at the low levels.
Yes on the imbalance between progressive and conservatives in the 501(c)(4) world.
No on the extra scrutiny for people just because they don’t like taxes.
The plausible deniability line of reasonaing is a a blind alley. the guy who created the filters was a conservative.
I think you are comparing a partisan journalist’s credibility with TIGTA.
TIGTA is usually considered fairly credible.
Did he say what Mr. Marshall said he did? Yes? And is there an ambiguity if not actually a contradiction therein? Yes? Then your point would be what, exactly?
How about someone looking like Cheech and Chong having their vehicle searched at a border crossing?
Or someone belonging to a radical anti-US Islamist group being given a pat-down at the airport?
OK, so what I got in the beginning here was that Issa asked for an investigation and specifically directed that the investigation be about Tea Party applications. Exclusively!
Has he denied this? Has he proven his denial? Outside of screaming “Benghazi” has he offered any rational explanation for his adventure in slander and lies? Does the truth matter at all to this man? What am I thinking, we’re talking about Darryl Eyesore, here, what a silly question.
Whats the defense? Where? This seems to be the crux of the biscuit, here, so…did he? Is that really what happened, or not? Wheres the debunking?
Here is a clarifying letter from the IG. Excerpts:
The numbers: 6 out of 20 groups with “progressive” or similar terms in their name received extra scrutiny. 292 out of 292 groups with Tea Party or related terms in their name received extra scrutiny.
So, the vast majority of organizations were Tea Party types. To be expected, given the circumstances. Though it is a bit curious how much this letter keeps coming back to the word “progressive” as if that were somehow definitive of something. But moving right along…
Doesn’t this excerpt pretty much say that of the Tea Party groups investigated, most of them showed evidence that they might well be out of line in terms of compliance, and another 175 were not properly analysed, they showed such evidence but it wasn’t picked up on, somehow.
you know, as I see it, when a group implicitly states that they are anti-taxation, then they deserve extra scrutiny. I don’t see how that isn’t simple logic.
First of all, that doesn’t describe all the groups, but even if it did, why? Why is it not a legitimate philosophical position to think that taxes should be lower? Or that a mechanism other than the current income tax might be a better and fairer way for the government to raise the revenue it needs?
You do realize that people have the right to suggest such things, as in “petition the government” without fear of it blowing back in their faces, right?
Do such groups deserve tax exempt status?
Depending on the organization, it may or may not. The same way a group advocating for a more progressive tax structure or other social policy may or may not.
“Activists seeking a change in the law should be suspected of breaking the law they are seeking to change” seems like a principle that progressives ought to be leery of endorsing.
There was no blowback against a philosophical position of political activism for low taxes. The blowback was against whether groups can have tax exemption status for doing social welfare work. They are not supposed to be doing political activities. Advocating for lower taxes is political. They can do politics on taxation to their hearts content - giving them tax free status while doing is against IRS rules is wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated. Why do we placate these Tea Party groups the the IRS has?
Does “suspicion” necessarily enter into it? We regulate all manner of activity. If we insist that drug makers verify the purity of their contents, does that mean we are “suspicious”, or simply performing a regulatory function?
For instance, “educating the public about the Constitution” could mask any number of very partisan activities, no? Indeed, such partisans would not be breaking the law according to their own lights if, for instance, they insist that the 2nd Amendment absitively and posolutely supports a particular stance on gun control. So far as they are concerned, that is “education” rather than indoctrination.
For my own two bits, I like the original law, to the effect that no political activity at all is permissible for such tax exempt status, the change in regulation that forbids a “predominance” of political activity makes a hash of it, you could drive a convoy of trucks through that loophole.
So it is not unreasonable for the IRS to investigate them, to determine the appropriate classification. You are aware that the IRS investigated progressive groups, as well as conservative groups?
damned lack of a sarcasm font