IRS inappropriately targets Tea Party, White House blames Bush

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I have read a bit about the AP thing now, if anything (in recent times) puts some suspicion on the administration that does.

It was definitely signed off by the deputy after all.

JM

Its systemic as the Attorney General can't recall how frequently he has done this.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/15/184138253/holder-isnt-sure-how-often-reporters-records-are-seized?ft=1&f=1001

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, I am in favor of an investigation that includes the administration about this issue.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, I am in favor of an investigation that includes the administration about this issue.

JM

[Aeson]

And a President is a President of a nation not a party. So when you call 47% of Americans "the enemy", what kind of inclusionary device is that? Presidents and candidates have long called the opposition party "them", "they", "my opponent", "the opposition" etc. but are loath to resort to phraseology ensuring they look at groups of US citizen as an excluded status. Or perhaps the code for disenfranchisement "The Republicans can ride but they got to sit in the back" wasn't clear enough.

Technically he called them the enemy of Hispanic interests. Which isn't that outrageous an assessment. (Touting his party as a friend is more outrageous.)

And I don't think the president needs to be inclusionary in all his statements. It would be better if Obama was always nice to Republicans, and vice versa, but that isn't the world we live in. We live in a world where 3 years later a silly semantic argument is raised about an issue which affected just about nothing other than the blood pressure of people who raised the silly semantic argument and those who argued against them.

He was making a speach in his role as POTUS as such any use of the word "us" implied the United States as a whole, not his adminstation, not the republican party, not that segment of public who believed as he did, but as the USA and its dealing with other nations. This was not a speech delivered as a head of a party or as a candidate looking to score points, it was directed in specific to foreign powers and in particular Pakistan. The fact that it so spectacularly backfired is irrelevent to the intent.

Except "us" weren't all with "us" in the way he was presenting it if that was the case. I certainly wasn't with his "us". The logic he was using that those who don't tag along with his wishes are against "us" can easily be applied to me as well as it would have if I was Canadian or Pakistani. I didn't support his war on terror (not the way he wanted to pursue it at least).

Now to compare the intent of Obamas comment which was clearly an attempt to delegitamize anyone not of the same opinion as he and presumably his latino supporters regardless that they are equal members of society.

The intent of Obama's comment was obviously to get votes from the Hispanic community by presenting himself as a friend to their interests, and the opposition as the enemy to their interests. Not a big deal. It's essentially the same concept that both political parties promote to anyone who will listen to them in and between every single election.

"We're for women." "They're fighting a war on women." "We're for business." "They're killing business." Blah blah blah. It's all about how "we're good, they're bad" ... doesn't matter whether it's "war", "enemy", "killing", or whatever else. They are all just synonyms and metaphors for the same concept.

[quote]Actually it was never clear about any such thing. He made any number of comments that he respected peoples right to dissent and attempted to treat the press with kid gloves including providing war time access in the field, as well as full cooperation within the white house to cover with any inklings of scandal.

He wasn't always so divisive. Just as Obama wasn't always calling people enemies of Hispanics.

So?

I find it interesting that something so absurdly insignificant plays so heavily on your mind.

I see little reason why the two are mutally exclusive considering the tactics employed to pass Obamacare depended heavily on demonizing and dividing groups of citizenry.

When you go off about how someone used the wrong synonym for your tastes 3 years ago, it undermines the credibility you have. It also distracts from other issues ... most Americans can only keep one scandal straight at a time, if that.

[Aeson]

I am also impressed that you are the one who responded to my comment.

I find the tactics you were employing weak and despicable, regardless of who you were referring to. I don't see why it would impress you that I would be derogatory of something I find weak and despicable... I have been derogatory of a great many things on this message board.

[Aeson]

That's what makes this IRS scandal and the incompetence it shows so awesome as it is the IRS that is in charge of enforcing Obamacare.

That is actually a good point

[Felch]

My "give-a-shit" is not working.

The DoJ snooping through the confidential phone records of dozens of reporters doesn't bother you? You're the poster child for selective outrage.

[PLATO]

I find the tactics you were employing weak and despicable

I just can't tell you how happy that makes me.

If you find it weak and despicable then I must be on the right track.

Please...do continue. You are truly making my day.

[MrFun]

This is why I'm not taking conservatives' "outrage" over this latest episode seriously.

[DinoDoc]

This is why I'm not taking conservatives' "outrage" over this latest episode seriously.

IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

WASHINGTON -- In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.

The controversial, 3-year-old strategy to manage the increasing number of political groups seeking tax-exempt status came under fire Tuesday. The agency's own inspector general blamed IRS leadership for "ineffective management."

The Justice Department wants to know if that was more than just mismanagement. Calling the IRS' actions "outrageous and unacceptable," Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that he has asked the FBI to investigate. "We're examining the facts to see if there were any criminal violations," he said.

A federal official who has been briefed on the matter said the investigation could focus on potential violations of civil rights law, including targeting groups based on political affiliation and infringing free speech. The official, who is not authorized to comment publicly, said authorities could consider possible violations of the Hatch Act, which restricts political activities of government workers.

The IRS inspector general, in an audit issued Tuesday, said the agency used "inappropriate criteria that identified Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions" instead of evidence of political activity. The tax exemption requires that organizations have "social welfare" as their primary purpose, but IRS officials said the rules are unclear how much political activity they can engage in.

The White House says it knew nothing of the screening until a few weeks ago. In a statement Tuesday, President Obama said, "The report's findings are intolerable and inexcusable." Obama said he has directed Treasury Secretary Jack Lew "to hold those responsible for these failures accountable, and to make sure that each of the Inspector General's recommendations are implemented quickly, so that such conduct never happens again."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-hold/2159983/

They treated everyone the same right, guys? It was also politically neutral.

[giblets]

This is why I'm not taking conservatives' "outrage" over this latest episode seriously.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]174220[/ATTACH]

I'm trying to grasp the logic here.
1. Conservatives were against ACORN and Planned Parenthood and public funding for PBS stations
2. ?????
3. Therefore, don't take the outcry over targeting of conservative groups by the IRS seriously
Fill in 2 for me please.

[MrFun]

DD, since when do you care about political neutrality? Oh wait, you will harp about political neutrality when it suits your agenda.

[Hauldren Collider]

This is why I'm not taking conservatives' "outrage" over this latest episode seriously.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]174220[/ATTACH]

This is actually I think the most nonsensical thing you've ever posted. Do you even recall how ACORN died right? To say nothing of the fact that it wasn't government agencies that got them killed.

MrFun, how does it feel to be an authoritarian? You don't give a flying **** when the government is corrupt towards people, as long as they are your political opponents.

[Aeson]

I just can't tell you how happy that makes me.

If you find it weak and despicable then I must be on the right track.

Please...do continue. You are truly making my day.

Yes, you are on the right track now. For the past two posts you are addressing me directly, and stating your views in a straightforward manner. I seem to have been able to quickly find a way to help you correct your earlier weakness.

You are welcome

[MrFun]

This is actually I think the most nonsensical thing you've ever posted. Do you even recall how ACORN died right? To say nothing of the fact that it wasn't government agencies that got them killed.

MrFun, how does it feel to be an authoritarian? You don't give a flying **** when the government is corrupt towards people, as long as they are your political opponents.

And you and DD only care about government corruption when its conservative organizations that are "targeted."