Turns out IRS did not single out Tea Party types

FredHayek wrote: I read a lot of different sources and sift through the bias on both sides.

It seems too often certain facts don't make it into news stories, one reason I still listen to NPR. They will feed the lefty line 90% of the piece and then give 10% airtime to right wing concerns.

Well, since you stand so far to the right, even the center will look left to you.

Not really, fiscal conservative and social libertarian. Homosexual marriage, supported this decades before Obama did. Same with homosexuals in the military, supported it years before Clinton did. Abortion rights? Supported it decades before Bill Ritter did.

I just have real issues with a feared bureacracy like the IRS being used to intimidate people of the left or right. And really shocked when I saw college students supporting and applauding perceived IRS bias. Goverment already has too much power and it is even worse when that power is used for partisan purposes.

And per the National Review, progressive organizations could be approved a lot easier than TEA Party groups which had to on the average wait much longer.

But that is the problem. The IRS did not use their power to "intimidate". They were using shortcut to identify groups that might not be eligible for the status they were seeking. It was not a question of intimidation, just whether the methods they were using were inappropriate to identify questionable applications. That the right wing has blown this up to be political intimidation is just a sign of the mess this country is in politically.
The intent of the IRS was correct, weed out partisan political groups that were seeking to claim special status intended only for social welfare groups, their methodology was apparently inappropriate.

Once again, like voting. Is it better to come down hard and demand reams of evidence and take months to approve, even ask for lists of donors and investigate them, right before a national election? Or approve now and keep a watch on them?
You think their uneven approvals was kosher, and I still don't.

But you do agree that it was not a white house directed politically motivated goon squad operation as previously alleged? Or do you? If you do, then can you provide a single iota of evidence backing it up?

The IRS did nothing to prevent the operation of the tea party groups who were requesting special tax treatment, only reviewing evidence to see if they deserved that special treatment reserved for nonpartisan social welfare groups. Obviously, when the initial evidence showed that they were engaging in partisan political activities, additional evidence and time was necessary in order to determine if their activities were truly social welfare and not primarily partisan politics. Don't you agree? Or do you think that since the groups were in engaging in partisan conservative politics, they should have been given a free pass and special treatment?

Something the Dog Said wrote: But you do agree that it was not a white house directed politically motivated goon squad operation as previously alleged? Or do you? If you do, then can you provide a single iota of evidence backing it up?

The IRS did nothing to prevent the operation of the tea party groups who were requesting special tax treatment, only reviewing evidence to see if they deserved that special treatment reserved for nonpartisan social welfare groups. Obviously, when the initial evidence showed that they were engaging in partisan political activities [/b][/i], additional evidence and time was necessary in order to determine if their activities were truly social welfare and not primarily partisan politics. Don't you agree? Or do you think that since the groups were in engaging in partisan conservative politics, they should have been given a free pass and special treatment?

And your source for the bold text above?

Really, you are demanding sources? this from the twin of Fred (never link) Hayek? Or are you so clueless that you do not believe that the tea party groups were actively engaging in partisan politics during the relevant time frame?

If you are so clueless then perhaps you should read the actual IRS reports (not the selected transcripts released by the high information value politican Darrell Issa).

But to assist you in vaunted self professed search for "high value" information, here is but one of a multitude of sources:

the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature.

Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications.

But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.

“Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/po ... =all&_r=1&

It looks like the White House wasn't involved so far, but this is to be expected if they were competent at all.
But consider this Dog, if the IRS was just running everything above board and without any partisan behavior, why did Lois Lerner clam up and invoke the 5th? that is a tactic the mob uses, not someone who thinks they are operating without guilt.
Personally I think people are still trying to cover their ass, and if they aren't doing anything wrong, they shouldn't be.

FredHayek wrote: It looks like the White House wasn't involved so far, but this is to be expected if they were competent at all.
But consider this Dog, if the IRS was just running everything above board and without any partisan behavior, why did Lois Lerner clam up and invoke the 5th? that is a tactic the mob uses, not someone who thinks they are operating without guilt.
Personally I think people are still trying to cover their ass, and if they aren't doing anything wrong, they shouldn't be.

Invoking their rights under the Constitution when threatened with criminal prosecution, which Issa had already claimed that he would be doing to Lerner, is a tactic used by everyone with any sense when faced with a hostile questioner not required to use the proper rules of evidence or court procedure. You can keep trying to insinuate that only a criminal would invoke the fifth when it is commonly done in hostile congressional hearings. If you were sworn under oath in a congressional hearing with a questioner who crafts their questions to require answers that can be misconstrued and threatened with criminal prosecution, would you invoke your constitutional rights or take a chance on being tripped up?

so no evidence of political intervention, singling out of only tea party groups or political motivation for selecting groups for review. According to the only factual study of this whole issue, the IG audit reports, there was only inappropriate keyword searches and mismanagement of the review of the applications. despite hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds spent on the kabuki theater of Issa and his cronies, no evidence of the contrary. Just attempts to use this to further political agendas.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Really, you are demanding sources? this from the twin of Fred (never link) Hayek? Or are you so clueless that you do not believe that the tea party groups were actively engaging in partisan politics during the relevant time frame?

If you are so clueless then perhaps you should read the actual IRS reports (not the selected transcripts released by the high information value politican Darrell Issa).

But to assist you in vaunted self professed search for "high value" information, here is but one of a multitude of sources:

the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature.

Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications.

But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.

“Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/po ... =all&_r=1&

Where are your multiple sources?
What IRS report are you talking about?
"These groups" Where is that close examination the article is referencing?

And no... I can't understand why some of these questions were asked... "We’re gonna need all your direct and indirect communication," "Provide copies of your website that only your members can access," "Your present and past employees and their relationships," "Does your board members plan to to be candidates for any public office," "Provide your op-ed pieces,"

Here... read the other questions for yourself.
http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspa ... lients.pdf

I'll expect a response from you Dog or else I will assume that you are not interested in continuing this conversation.