Skip to main content

View Diary: All Three GOP Manufactured Scandals Falling Apart (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  However (0+ / 0-)

    that isn't the point. They were ONLY targeted because of their name. IRS employees decided that groups that advocated for smaller government were somehow specially untrustworthy, and acted on this opinion by singling them out for extra bureaucratic hassles. This is hugely disturbing.

    I wish people would quit defending the indefensible.

    •  It is the point, because it's their JOB. (0+ / 0-)

      Yes, they determined that a bunch of organizations with political ideologies right there in the name might be at a substantially higher risk of, you know, operating primarily as political vehicles and not as vehicles for social welfare, and (rightly, according to the IG) deserved extra scrutiny.

      That's not indefensible... it's their FUCKING JOB.

      Actually, no, their fucking job was to read "exclusively" AS "exclusively" (because that's what the code, you know, actually says), not this "primarily" crap, and tell them ALL* to GTFO. But one could only hope.

      *Would hurt liberal groups too, you say? Well... as conservative identifiable groups outspent liberal identifiable ones 34:1... WITHOUT counting Crossroads, who, under a correct reading of the code would be told where it could stick itself too... AND that these groups wouldn't be shut down, just wouldn't get both tax exempt and super duper secret status... I don't see the problem.

      •  It IS indefensible! (0+ / 0-)

        The IRS uses political and ideological criteria to target applications is defensible? jeez. Maybe you're OK if they used Progressive ? Community? Organizing? Forward? They sued Patriot, Constitution.

        this is insane:

        with political ideologies right there in the name might be at a substantially higher risk of, you know, operating primarily as political vehicles and not as vehicles for social welfare,
        We have a lot of 504c too: Organizing for Action -which actually was an outgrowth of the Obama campaign. Media Matters? Move on?

        I cannot believe you would approve of the IRS using political bias to hold up applications. The IRS says it is wrong but you defend them anyway?  Nixon would approve.

        •  YES! When the SPECIAL TREATMENT you're after (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          certainot

          requires that you're not primarily political (at all, actually, see 1959 etc.)... then MANY things that indicate you might just be primarily political could cause problems with your application...

          ...LIKE HAVING THE FACT RIGHT THERE IN YOUR NAME.

          I hope that you simply don't get that they were sent for extra scrutiny because they were OVERTLY political, not because of WHICH political affiliation, because scrutinizing how political an application is IS PRETTY MUCH EXACTLY WHAT IS REQUIRED IN MAKING A DETERMINATION ON IF THE GROUP GETS SPECIAL TREATMENT ONLY GRANTED IF IT'S NOT PRIMARILY POLITICAL...

          ...because the other option does not paint you in a positive light.

          •  You are simply wrong (0+ / 0-)
            not because of WHICH political affiliation
            It WAS because of which political affiliation. They used specific political terms from ONE side only. "Patriot", "Constitution" are political? They didn't use Green, Liberal, Progressive for identification. Why this is acceptable to supposed liberals is beyond my comprehension. It is Nixonian.

            And why are you defending this action when they themselves have admitted it was wrong?  

            I hope you just didn't realize these facts because the other option does not paint you in a positive light.

      •  PS (0+ / 0-)

        Do you eat with that mouth?

        And their job is to be objective, not biased.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site