70% say at the targeting by the Internal Revenue Service of tea party and other conservative groups

[amerciti001]

that were applying for tax exempt status was unacceptable.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/19/have-new-controversies-hurt-obama-has-gop-overreacted/?hpt=hp_t1

Really, are 70% of people polled are that stupid not to realize nor fully understand just what the Tea Party groups are trying to do to this country under the auspices of a 501(c)4 tax exempt status?

Now that is what I would consider as "unacceptable"

[librechik]

1. they were not asked if cons were "singled out" in the question: they were not.

media have presented this as an exceptional targeting, when in fact all 501 c 4 groups which seemed they might ave a polical aspect were "targeted."

However, only one of the "targeted" groups lost their tax exempt status. A liberal group.

No one got hurt, no one was hindered. Yet this is somehow the biggest scandal since Watergate.

In fact, I like the IRS scrutiny on 501cs, and do not mind that liberal groups get scrutiny too.

Whoever is disturbed by this incident has been severely misinformed by media which have NOT told the full story, but just focused on their own misconceptions to advance the anti-liberal agenda.

[SlimJimmy]

9. So you don't think that holding up the approval process for 18-36 months is hindering?

That time frame encompassed two election cycles. I'd say it made quite a difference to these groups. And it would make quite a difference to progressive groups should they ever be targeted this way.

"... no one was hindered"

[librechik]

11. nope--especially when new rules are being applied. And Republicans have gutted staff at the IRS.

besides, what a scam! who on earth believes The Tea Party is an apolitical social action group?
They have Party in the name!

However, they seem to have convinced somebody in the evil IRS that they deserved exemption, because they eventually got it.

This is a big tantrum being thrown over nothing because Repubs are angry they lost the election, and refuse to be collegial with the rest of the nation, which won the election. They are always full of tricks to throw a wrench into the Democratic Agenda--they don't believe in democracy. They want to be the One Ruling Party, like always.

[SlimJimmy]

12. Well, the IG report is in direct opposition to your assessment. The delay in processing

was unacceptable as were some of the questions being asked. The law prohibits the IRS from asking about donors or membership, yet it happened. I have serious issues with the IRS actions in this case. You should too. If it were progressive groups being specifically targeted, I'll wager that your attitude would be quite different.

I'm really finding this "Well, it was rethugs, so it's okay" attitude on DU quite disturbing.

[librechik]

13. did you not read the OP? Liberal groups WERE "Targeted."

and in fact only a Democratic Women's group was denied 501c4 status.

And no, I am not mad. This is a new category that agents are inexperienced in handling, and it was a good thing that the protocol slowed things down. Kinks were bound to appear, and they did.

But if some group with the word Party in their name are throwing down over being scrutinized for a possible political affiliation, all I can do is say please, pull the other leg.

[SlimJimmy]

14. Yes I did, and nowhere in the report does it say that "key words" were used to specifically

target liberal groups. Yet key words *were* used to target conservative groups. That's the problem, and it's also what you don't seem to have a problem with.

[librechik]

15. nor does it say that conservatives were singled out for scrutiny.

You are stuck on Fox talking points.

[SlimJimmy]

16. I knew you'd revert to the "Fox talking points" canard at some point.

just lame. But with that said, let me ask you a question: How many progressive groups have "tea party" or "patriot" in their names? If that's not specific targeting, then I don't what is. You can hide your head in the sand because this was directed against conservative groups, but I'd rather call foul before progressive groups are targeted. I'd rather be on the unbiased side of this argument. I'd rather be on the right side of history here. You can do what you want.

[SlimJimmy]

2. I think the 70%, of which I am a part, don't think that the specific targeting of one

group over another is acceptable. If *all* groups applying were scrutinized to the same extent, then I wouldn't have an issue with it.

[ProSense]

3. Like all the other

"Really, are 70% of people polled are that stupid not to realize nor fully understand just what the Tea Party groups are trying to do to this country under the auspices of a 501(c)4 tax exempt status? "

...fake scandals, wait until even more information comes out...massive Republican FAIL, from the OP link:

But more than six in 10 say that the president's statements about the IRS scandal are completely or mostly true, with 35% not agreeing with Obama's characterizations. And 55% say that IRS acted on its own, with 37% saying that White House ordered the IRS to target tea party and other conservative groups.

Nate Silver's Statistical Analysis - Sends IRS Critiques To "The Fainting Couch"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022866334

The Only Scandal Regarding the IRS is How EVERY Tea Party Group Obtained 501(C)(4) Status
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022867025

‘Doctored’ Benghazi e-mails rankle Dem lawmaker
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022864633

[Rex]

4. 70 out of 300 organizations...sorry not buying it.

This scandal is only alive in the minds of the RWing.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Do you think that targeting Muslims for possible terrorist activities is okay?

[spin]

6. Just be aware that if the Tea Party and conservative groups get singled out today ...

that in the future under a Republican administration liberal and progressive groups may face the same treatment.

I hate to say this but eventually in the future it is possible that a Republican will be in the White House and Republicans will hold the majority in one, if not both, houses of Congress.

Obviously I feel it's great if the referees unfairly penalize the opponents of my favorite football team and the Steelers win. However I get really upset when they unfairly penalize my Steelers. The best outcome is actually when the referees are entirely fair and the better team wins.

[customerserviceguy]

7. It's a matter of identifying with a scandal

Most of the mushy middle of voters (those who don't decide how to vote until the weekend before an election) can't relate to the Benghazi or AP scandals, because they're not overseas diplomats or reporters, but they are taxpayers, and can understand just enough to fear the IRS scandal.

This one's got legs, and the President is going to have to do way more than would normally be necessary to put the genie of fear back into the bottle. The Repukes are batshit crazy on Benghazi, only their base gets energized about it, but when the IRS is involved, there's an opportunity.

[siligut]

8. Right, so don't scrutinize terrorist groups or sex offenders either

The Tea Party is an anti-tax political group and their applications for charity status is a tax dodge. Mitt Romney probably had something to do with this scam.

[surrealAmerican]

10. It doesn't mean they're stupid.

It means they are getting their "information" from the main-stream media, which, unfortunately, is not an unbiased source.


Few Americans, smart or otherwise, care enough, or have time enough, to look further.