quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
What is the difference between the IRS singling out groups of a certain bent and checking to make sure they're on the straight and narrow and a New York cop doing the "Stop and Frisk" on someone who fits a certain profile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
What is the difference between the IRS singling out groups of a certain bent and checking to make sure they're on the straight and narrow and a New York cop doing the "Stop and Frisk" on someone who fits a certain profile.

If the IRS can show through empirical data that a certain group or groups have a history of fraudulently applying for tax exempt status then subjecting those groups to greater scrutiny might be warranted. That's what a profile is. Targeting a group or individual simply because you don't like then or agree with them (as was the case in the IRS scandal) is unwarranted. Your examples are not examples of profiling but rather they are examples of arbitrarily targeting certain groups.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Both liberal and conservative groups received the additional scrutiny and only liberal groups were actually denied 501(c)4 status.

I think she means here on Earth.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe
If the IRS can show through empirical data that a certain group or groups have a history of fraudulently applying for tax exempt status then subjecting those groups to greater scrutiny might be warranted. That's what a profile is. Targeting a group or individual simply because you don't like then or agree with them (as was the case in the IRS scandal) is unwarranted. Your examples are not examples of profiling but rather they are examples of arbitrarily targeting certain groups.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colbert_Super_PAC
Colbert filed a request with the FEC asking for a media exemption for coverage of his then-prospective Super PAC on a May 2011 episode of The Colbert Report.[12][13] The FEC voted 5-1 to grant The Colbert Report a limited media exemption during a June 2011 public meeting.[14] Following the hearing, Colbert formally filed paperwork for the creation of his super PAC with the FEC secretary.[15] The FEC approved Colbert's bid to form a Super PAC on June 30, 2011.

Troubled by the fact that large corporations were not donating to his SuperPAC, on September 29, 2011, Potter explained that corporations prefer to remain anonymous when supporting political causes. Therefore, he helped Colbert set up in Delaware a 501(c)(4) shell corporation to which donations can be given anonymously without limit and used for political purposes, similar to American Crossroads.[16] It was initially named the "Anonymous Shell Corporation",[17] but according to the Delaware Secretary of State's Office the official name was changed to "Colbert Super PAC SHH Institute" on the same day.

Donations made to the shell corporation could be funneled to ColbertPAC without disclosure of the ultimate source of the donation. When Colbert asked what the difference is between this and money laundering, Potter answered, "It's hard to say." [18]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Both liberal and conservative groups received the additional scrutiny and only liberal groups were actually denied 501(c)4 status.

I think she means here on Earth.
K.

I think you should take your foot out of your mouth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/15/report-the-irs-also-targeted-at-least-three-liberal-groups/

quote:

One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Tea party may be a target, patriot would target unbiasedly.   These are not the only words they used, but the ones that are causing teabaggers hemmorhoids.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Yeah, I have said it throughout this and your whining is noisome.  I do not think that you could find three credible people who could adduce in any fashion that you have ever added to the convo.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Both liberal and conservative groups received the additional scrutiny and only liberal groups were actually denied 501(c)4 status.

I think she means here on Earth.
K.

I think you should take your foot out of your mouth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/15/report-the-irs-also-targeted-at-least-three-liberal-groups/

Before you recommend anyone get their foot out of their mouth, you might want to verify their foot is in their mouth.

Why were the 3 left-leaning organizations declined? Wait, I'm sorry, allow me to rephrase that... Why did 1 of the 3 left-leaning organizations get their application denied?

quote:

One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

So, 3 left-leaning groups were "targeted" (actually, they weren't targeted, but more scrutiny was called for) and one had their application denied.

You do realize that isn't anywhere near the same as what went on with the conservative groups that were, in fact, targeted, right? That isn't proof of anything. Nice try, though.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
OH, you were first?  So, you happen to be right about some small feature of the hysterical asswipe that are these threads.   I wouldn't have caught it thru all your drivel, because I generally skip you posts. Unless they are right there in my face, and garish (that is a given).  

quote:

There was a concerted effort on the part of an IRS office in Cincinnati to scrutinize certain groups more than other groups. These groups contained, within their names, "tea party" and/or "patriot." The former will typically only be used by conservative groups, while conservative or liberal groups can lay claim to being patriots.

quote:

Those were not the only words in the names searched. And to say 'patriot' would be a moniker owned or describing exlcusively a teabagger group would be the ultimate definition of 'fucking stupid'.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
They were all targeted for extra scrutiny. None repeat none of the conservative organizations applications were denied. At least on liberal group was denied. Now precisely how was this " Targeting a group or individual simply because you don't like then or agree with them"? Both sides got extra scrutiny and the leftists were the ones actually denied.

quote:

The scandal that you're trying to create is that the people who were deluged by these applications created criteria for selecting some for extra scrutiny, groups including tea party or tax in their names. Now why would a social welfare group legally required to not have politics as its primary activity have a name like that?
The scandal is that any of these groups, left and right, got approved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#501.28c.29.284.29

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
They were all targeted for extra scrutiny. None repeat none of the conservative organizations applications were denied. At least on liberal group was denied. Now precisely how was this " Targeting a group or individual simply because you don't like then or agree with them"? Both sides got extra scrutiny and the leftists were the ones actually denied.

Pulling a handful out isn't targeting. But, do go on. One left-leaning group was denied. None of the right-leaning groups was denied. Since we don't know why the left-leaning group was denied, we can't know if it was discriminatory or not. And, we can't know if any of the right-leaning groups weren't denied although they were guilty of the same thing that the one left-leaning group was denied over.

Groups from both sides got extra scrutiny. I don't dispute that and never would have. However, there was an admitted wrongdoing in how the right-leaning groups were chosen for extra scrutiny. That none of them were denied simply shows that there was nothing wrong going on with their applications.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
They were all targeted for extra scrutiny. None repeat none of the conservative organizations applications were denied. At least on liberal group was denied. Now precisely how was this " Targeting a group or individual simply because you don't like then or agree with them"? Both sides got extra scrutiny and the leftists were the ones actually denied.

Pulling a handful out isn't targeting. But, do go on. One left-leaning group was denied. None of the right-leaning groups was denied. Since we don't know why the left-leaning group was denied, we can't know if it was discriminatory or not. And, we can't know if any of the right-leaning groups weren't denied although they were guilty of the same thing that the one left-leaning group was denied over.
Groups from both sides got extra scrutiny. I don't dispute that and never would have. However, there was an admitted wrongdoing in how the right-leaning groups were chosen for extra scrutiny. That none of them were denied simply shows that there was nothing wrong going on with their applications.

Both you and Kirata disputed my statement that it was not partisan. I am simply proving the point.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)