"Imagine a political movement created in a moment of terrible anxiety, its origins shrouded in a peculiar combination of manipulation and grass-roots mobilization, its ranks dominated by Christian conservatives and self-proclaimed patriots, its agenda driven by its members' fervent embrace of nationalism, nativism and moral regeneration, with more than a whiff of racism wafting through it."
- Kevin Boyle
Guess who I am talking about? Oh, look, that describes the KKK of the 1920's. Guess what it also sounds like? Oh, right. The Tea Party.
The Tea Party and KKK are both conservative populist movements that were in reaction to changes of their times. The members of today's Tea Party would have felt welcome in yesteryear's KKK and vice versa.
"Imagine a political movement created in a moment of terrible anxiety, its origins shrouded in a peculiar combination of manipulation and grass-roots mobilization, its ranks dominated by Christian conservatives and self-proclaimed patriots, its agenda driven by its members' fervent embrace of nationalism, nativism and moral regeneration, with more than a whiff of racism wafting through it."
- Kevin Boyle
Guess who I am talking about? Oh, look, that describes the KKK of the 1920's. Guess what it also sounds like? Oh, right. The Tea Party.
The Tea Party and KKK are both conservative populist movements that were in reaction to changes of their times. The members of today's Tea Party would have felt welcome in yesteryear's KKK and vice versa.
I like how you are somehow capable of saying everything you say with a straight face, and then also capable of pretending you aren't wearing political blinders...
While he's being a little bit over-reaching in comparing ALL of both to each other, there's definitely some (debatable how much) commonalities that would attract the same types.
While he's being a little bit over-reaching in comparing ALL of both to each other, there's definitely some (debatable how much) commonalities that would attract the same types.
But, saying that people attracted to the KKK may also be attracted to the tea party is not the same as saying that the tea party is essentially the same as the kkk.
He either doesn't know how to turn off his hyperbole, or he has one of the most severe partisan blinders I've ever seen... and i don't really think its the first one.
I am not saying they are each other. I am saying they are very similar, that is all. If you get past the racist overtones of the Tea Party and the KKK, you will find many similarities, such as Xenophobia.
2) Similar, except for the whole white supremacist, racism aspect that is the entire point of the KKK?
Well, the whole, is the Tea Party racist? is a discussion for another day. The point is that they are both far-right, populist movements that started in the face of perceived threat to their way of life.
Anti-Union, Anti-immigration, they both dress up in silly costumes and call themselves the only true patriots, the vast, vast majority of both are white Christians, the KKK had minorities like the Tea Party has gays and lesbians, they are both movements that spanned the country, both exploited people's anger...
Still waiting for specific SPLC examples and counterexamples they've ignored FYI - rather than going off on a ramble about hate speech.
Additionally keep in mind they don't as you hyperbolicly implied "went after people enacting freedom of speech" with any type of legal force. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be criticized for such speech, that doesn't infringe on freedom of speech one bit. To imply otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the hell freedom of speech means.
I see one non-specific example, hard to debate something in non-specifics. And no counterpoint provided per my request there either.
(And do keep in mind quite a few of those "protect the kids" groups do have an OK message but have vocal leaders that have made very nasty statements personally while their group message is presented appropriately in and of itself - and the SPLC in those cases to my knowledge have only critiqued the figurehead not the organization)
No, it wasn't. Even if the Tea Party was a giant group of raging racists (it's not), it still wouldn't be the KKK of yesteryear because it's not a white supremcist group, it's not engaging in criminal activities targeting minorities, its basically nothing like the KKK.
Plenty of circumstantial evidence (e.g., Birthers) suggests white supremacist leanings.
I have my disagreements with Obama. But I don't assume he was born in Kenya and that Hawaii birth certificate is because of some decades-old conspiracy to make Obama president because why?
The key would be to provide examples they've lambasted on one side while ignoring a comparable example on the other side. Counterpoint being quite important.
I can tell you right now though that proving "hate groups" under the modern variants that exist in any great number outside of the right wingis going to be tricky - and they do speak out on some of the few left wing ones like the NBPP.
And under modern politics "tolerance" which is their primary goal will have a general appearance of following the party that espouses tolerance even when it's not intentional.
If one party went pro or anti animal soon after some people would think the ASPCA is a shill for them since they share a page, when the ASPCA never changed their own politics.
So labeling someone expressing free speech as a hate group isn't a good counter example in itself?
Are abortions legal? Certainly.
Are all abortions legal? Certainly not.
Where should the legal line reside regarding when a woman may have an abortion? That is a matter of free speech.
What group is the worst group for parenting a child?
1. single parent
2. married parents (v.o.)
3. married (where able) gay parents (adoptive or otherwise)
4. remarried (where able) parent of set 2 or set 3
Which group is the best for a child?
But when is speaking to the question of parenting hate speech? whenever the SPLC announces it!
Or maybe it was this Really? Indians are part of some sinister conspiracy? Seriously?
He also wrote one post about how genocide against Indians was a wonderful thing because it meant Indians could learn about Christianity BALEETED!
Saying some action is a sin against God and that the sinner goes to Hell isn't hate speech. According to Islam, I am going to hell. According to Catholics, I am likely going to purgatory.
That's not how purgatory works. You're thinking of limbo, which doesn't exist anymore, per a 1996 encyclical, but "have faith" wrt: what happens to aborted fetuses.
Purgatory is where you're "purged" of sins before entering heaven.
And genocide denialism (or worse, apologia) is generally regarded as hate speech. At least genocide denialists admit that most of the world considers genocide evil. Genocide apologists are convinced that they can convince the world that genocide is a wonderful happy fun time.
(And I should hope a group as antigay as the AFA has an issue with missionaries molesting children. Missionary work was the Antarctic reassignment for pedophile priests for a long time.)
In addition, "spouts on about the First Amendment when speaking of a non-government entity" is the practically free space on virtually all my bingo cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
No, it wasn't. Even if the Tea Party was a giant group of raging racists (it's not), it still wouldn't be the KKK of yesteryear because it's not a white supremcist group, it's not engaging in criminal activities targeting minorities, its basically nothing like the KKK.
Plenty of circumstantial evidence (e.g., Birthers) suggests white supremacist leanings.
I have my disagreements with Obama. But I don't assume he was born in Kenya and that Hawaii birth certificate is because of some decades-old conspiracy to make Obama president because why?
White supremecist is to racist as Islamist is to Muslim. One can be a racist without being a white supremecist. Even if you want to argue that there are racist elements within the tea party (which I won't dispute... there are racists who joined the tea party), there is absolutely no evidence -- circumstantial or otherwise -- that the tea party is even remotely leaning towards being a white supremecist organization.
It's almost as though political parties, even sub parties within a larger party can include multiple different people that fundamentally disagree on some issues but agree on an overriding issue (such as economics).
Almost.
Never mind the fact that the existence of some racists in the tea party is not, and should not be, an indictment on the tea party itself... The tea party itself isn't racist.
Darrell Issa was on a few days ago, saying their evidence that Obama's behind it is, well, they can't prove it yet, but they know he's behind it.
"My gut tells me that too many people knew this wrongdoing was going on before the election, and at least by some sort of convenient, benign neglect, allowed it to go on through the election," he said. "I'm not making any allegations as to motive, that they set out to do it, but certainly people knew it was happening."
So it's his intuition. I think we've heard enough.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
First of all, Republicans knew about it before the election, lol.
Secondly Issa is a sack of **** who also said the exact same thing about Benghazi and also has no evidence on that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
First of all, Republicans knew about it before the election, lol.
Secondly Issa is a sack of **** who also said the exact same thing about Benghazi and also has no evidence on that.
I am not saying you're wrong, because I haven't heard this claim, but why in the world would the Republicans sit on this before the election? This could have been a huge boon to them claiming Obama knew this was going on and letting the facts come out after they got their man elected...
First of all, Republicans knew about it before the election, lol.
Secondly Issa is a sack of **** who also said the exact same thing about Benghazi and also has no evidence on that.
I am not saying you're wrong, because I haven't heard this claim, but why in the world would the Republicans sit on this before the election? This could have been a huge boon to them claiming Obama knew this was going on and letting the facts come out after they got their man elected...
No clue why they did what they did, but there's a substantial amount of evidence that GOP leadership knew about it in June.
Now I realize that some of these are super far left websites; they were the first hits on that one search engine. However, I am not agreeing with their commentary on the matter (mostly because I only ever read far enough to corroborate the fact claim that I made) but rather for the fact claim.
This (taken from the ABC report) may be the reason they "sat" on it.
"According the Issa aide, the committee received an email update from George in December saying, “We are leaving no stone unturned as part of our due diligence. As such, we won’t be able to provide a detailed, substantive briefing until late April/early May.”"
But 1) this is from an Issa aide with an unconfirmed email 2) theoretically took place in December, after the election which doesn't explain their silence from June-November and 3) isn't exactly like the Republican leadership to wait to corroborate a ton of evidence before calling it a scandal for Obama, especially when it's Darrell Issa; see: Benghazi.
This WSJ article says that the Obama Administration was informed in June as well and that Republicans were actually going public with it. Which I REALLY don't remember.
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Now this is funny, because of the audit the IRS performed on itself, it seems they have come to the conclusion that more conservative groups need to be targeted to see if they still should have tax exempt status.
Now this is funny, because of the audit the IRS performed on itself, it seems they have come to the conclusion that more conservative groups need to be targeted to see if they still should have tax exempt status.
I would correct that statement to say "they have come to the conclusion that more groups need to be reviewed"
Again, the problem was never reviewieng conservative groups -- the problem was targeting conservative groups (specifically) for increased review. The article you linked is noticeably silent as to any targeted affiliation of the groups to be reviewed. Probably because that was the entire problem with the review process.
It bears repeating, AGAIN, that targeting and selecting groups for increased scrutiny ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
The fundamental problem was "George mentioned that inappropriate criteria were used by agents in Ohio, due to a lack of oversight, which was attributable to human challenges (read: lack of funding, and thank a Republican)." Basically, the IRS is even still admitting that what they did was wrong.
You mean like how conservative nonprofits outspent liberal nonprofits on political funding by 34-1?
Also, "The audit 'determined that the majority of the 296 potential political cases we reviewed included indications of significant political campaign intervention.' This means that the majority reviewed were engaging in activities that warranted a review under the law."
So it sounds like their criteria of target groups with Tea Party in their name was actually a fairly good way of doing it since under that criteria, a majority of the audited groups deserved to be audited. In fact, only 19 groups using conservative name markers didn't require auditing.
Also, this wasn't because they were targeting conservative groups out of malice, but because they were understaffed and underfunded. "George mentioned that inappropriate criteria were used by agents in Ohio, due to a lack of oversight, which was attributable to human challenges (read: lack of funding, and thank a Republican)."
Now this is funny, because of the audit the IRS performed on itself, it seems they have come to the conclusion that more conservative groups need to be targeted to see if they still should have tax exempt status.
There's a very powerful skeptical saying called Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which could also be attributed to a convergence of stupidity and happenstance."
I agree that the info coming out of the inquiry seems to support that conservative groups that claimed religious or social function just happened to be pushing the boundaries of the law at the same time the IRS was cracking down on groups who do just that. Given the fact that several positions of the national conservative platform happen to be rooted in religious ideas, it should come as no surprise that conservative groups are being effected by the crackdown at a higher rate than progressive groups.
It'll take a smoking gun of a memo to prove that this was a witch hunt motivated by politics and spite rather than just an easily misinterpreted coincident.
You mean like how conservative nonprofits outspent liberal nonprofits on political funding by 34-1?
Also, "The audit 'determined that the majority of the 296 potential political cases we reviewed included indications of significant political campaign intervention.' This means that the majority reviewed were engaging in activities that warranted a review under the law."
So it sounds like their criteria of target groups with Tea Party in their name was actually a fairly good way of doing it since under that criteria, a majority of the audited groups deserved to be audited. In fact, only 19 groups using conservative name markers didn't require auditing.
Look, you clearly have totally and completely missed the entire point of this thread, and I don't know how. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly. You are too busy happily defending the improper process performed by the IRS because it hurt *the other guy* and not *your guy* to see that the complaint is not, and and never has been about the results, but rather about the process.
This thread is not about the republicans getting "hosed" or "what they deserved". It's about the IRS using an improper metric to determine who to evaluate with greater scrutiny.
SOMETHING THEY HAVE CONTINUED ADMITTING, AND NOBODY HAS CONTESTED, THAT THEY ACTUALLY DID (Edit: well... nobody outside of this thread at least.)
Also, this wasn't because they were targeting conservative groups out of malice, but because they were understaffed and underfunded. "George mentioned that inappropriate criteria were used by agents in Ohio, due to a lack of oversight, which was attributable to human challenges (read: lack of funding, and thank a Republican)."
I never said it was out of malice. In fact, I've been pretty consistently saying that I *didn't* think it was. The point has never been "raaaaaaaar they are targeting conservatives because they hate conservatives". The point has been "they are using inappropriate metrics to determine who to review, resulting in them improperly targeting a single political ideology."
I agree that the info coming out of the inquiry seems to support that conservative groups that claimed religious or social function just happened to be pushing the boundaries of the law at the same time the IRS was cracking down on groups who do just that. Given the fact that several positions of the national conservative platform happen to be rooted in religious ideas, it should come as no surprise that conservative groups are being effected by the crackdown at a higher rate than progressive groups.
It'll take a smoking gun of a memo to prove that this was a witch hunt motivated by politics and spite rather than just an easily misinterpreted coincident.
You haven't been following this very closely at all, have you?
1) Religious affiliation is completely unrelated to this issue.
2) The IRS has openly admitted to improperly targeting terms associated with a single political ideology for increased scrutiny. It's not a "happenstance" or a "coincidence". It was an intentional action. Even if this action was taken in response to elevated levels of groups with that affiliation applying, it's still improper.
3) The complaint in this thread is not, and never has been, that conservative groups are being subject to increased scrutiny at a proportionately higher rate, but rather that because of the improper targeting metric used by the IRS the conservative groups are being *disproportionately* targeted at a higher rate. That higher rate being "100%".
You wanna make sure it never happens again, increase funding for the IRS, overturn Citizens United, and get rid of the culture within the conservative elements of this country that want to exploit things like this. Done. End of thread.
You wanna make sure it never happens again, increase funding for the IRS, overturn Citizens United, and get rid of the culture within the conservative elements of this country that want to exploit things like this.
I still maintain that it is not the fault of "citizens united" that this occurred. With proper support staff (comes with increased funding - which I'm not opposed to in this instance) proper evaluations can be made and groups not eligible *even under citizens united* can be weeded out.
I don't know enough of the specific details of the citizens united case to say if I agree with the holding or not, but I do know enough about the law in general to know that you can't just overturn cases because you don't like the outcome. The courts interpret the law, they do not make it.
Even if the law leads to undesirable outcomes.
As for "get rid of the culture within the conservative elements that want to exploit things like this" -- you may as well say "get rid of human nature." Some people may actually think that there are no elements in the liberal leaning parties in the US that would exploit what they see as a tax loophole, but that belief isn't supported by reality. Is it more prevelant in the conservative parties? Possibly -- I don't konw, but I can say with great confidence it is not *only* a problem in the consevative parties...
I still maintain that it is not the fault of "citizens united" that this occurred. With proper support staff (comes with increased funding - which I'm not opposed to in this instance) proper evaluations can be made and groups not eligible *even under citizens united* can be weeded out.
Citizens united happened and applications more than doubled.
I don't know enough of the specific details of the citizens united case to say if I agree with the holding or not, but I do know enough about the law in general to know that you can't just overturn cases because you don't like the outcome. The courts interpret the law, they do not make it.
Hence we need a constitutional ammendment which I am sure most Americans would agree
As for "get rid of the culture within the conservative elements that want to exploit things like this" -- you may as well say "get rid of human nature." Some people may actually think that there are no elements in the liberal leaning parties in the US that would exploit what they see as a tax loophole, but that belief isn't supported by reality. Is it more prevelant in the conservative parties? Possibly -- I don't konw, but I can say with great confidence it is not *only* a problem in the consevative parties...
Did you miss the part where conservative nonprofits outspent liberal nonprofits by 34-1?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Truth has a liberal bias.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Imagine a political movement created in a moment of terrible anxiety, its origins shrouded in a peculiar combination of manipulation and grass-roots mobilization, its ranks dominated by Christian conservatives and self-proclaimed patriots, its agenda driven by its members' fervent embrace of nationalism, nativism and moral regeneration, with more than a whiff of racism wafting through it."
- Kevin Boyle
Guess who I am talking about? Oh, look, that describes the KKK of the 1920's. Guess what it also sounds like? Oh, right. The Tea Party.
The Tea Party and KKK are both conservative populist movements that were in reaction to changes of their times. The members of today's Tea Party would have felt welcome in yesteryear's KKK and vice versa.
Also, a decent read on the subject. http://everythingispolitics.org/is-the-tea-party-the-modern-day-kkk/
I like how you are somehow capable of saying everything you say with a straight face, and then also capable of pretending you aren't wearing political blinders...
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
But, saying that people attracted to the KKK may also be attracted to the tea party is not the same as saying that the tea party is essentially the same as the kkk.
He either doesn't know how to turn off his hyperbole, or he has one of the most severe partisan blinders I've ever seen... and i don't really think its the first one.
1) that is not what you said here:
2) Similar, except for the whole white supremacist, racism aspect that is the entire point of the KKK?
Well, the whole, is the Tea Party racist? is a discussion for another day. The point is that they are both far-right, populist movements that started in the face of perceived threat to their way of life.
Anti-Union, Anti-immigration, they both dress up in silly costumes and call themselves the only true patriots, the vast, vast majority of both are white Christians, the KKK had minorities like the Tea Party has gays and lesbians, they are both movements that spanned the country, both exploited people's anger...
Additionally keep in mind they don't as you hyperbolicly implied "went after people enacting freedom of speech" with any type of legal force. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be criticized for such speech, that doesn't infringe on freedom of speech one bit. To imply otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the hell freedom of speech means.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
(And do keep in mind quite a few of those "protect the kids" groups do have an OK message but have vocal leaders that have made very nasty statements personally while their group message is presented appropriately in and of itself - and the SPLC in those cases to my knowledge have only critiqued the figurehead not the organization)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
That's why he puts people who point out his logical fallacies on his ignore list.
Flame infraction.
Plenty of circumstantial evidence (e.g., Birthers) suggests white supremacist leanings.
I have my disagreements with Obama. But I don't assume he was born in Kenya and that Hawaii birth certificate is because of some decades-old conspiracy to make Obama president because why?
Or maybe it was this Really? Indians are part of some sinister conspiracy? Seriously?
He also wrote one post about how genocide against Indians was a wonderful thing because it meant Indians could learn about Christianity BALEETED!
That's not how purgatory works. You're thinking of limbo, which doesn't exist anymore, per a 1996 encyclical, but "have faith" wrt: what happens to aborted fetuses.
Purgatory is where you're "purged" of sins before entering heaven.
And genocide denialism (or worse, apologia) is generally regarded as hate speech. At least genocide denialists admit that most of the world considers genocide evil. Genocide apologists are convinced that they can convince the world that genocide is a wonderful happy fun time.
(And I should hope a group as antigay as the AFA has an issue with missionaries molesting children. Missionary work was the Antarctic reassignment for pedophile priests for a long time.)
In addition, "spouts on about the First Amendment when speaking of a non-government entity" is the practically free space on virtually all my bingo cards.
On phasing:
White supremecist is to racist as Islamist is to Muslim. One can be a racist without being a white supremecist. Even if you want to argue that there are racist elements within the tea party (which I won't dispute... there are racists who joined the tea party), there is absolutely no evidence -- circumstantial or otherwise -- that the tea party is even remotely leaning towards being a white supremecist organization.
It's almost as though political parties, even sub parties within a larger party can include multiple different people that fundamentally disagree on some issues but agree on an overriding issue (such as economics).
Almost.
Never mind the fact that the existence of some racists in the tea party is not, and should not be, an indictment on the tea party itself... The tea party itself isn't racist.
"My gut tells me that too many people knew this wrongdoing was going on before the election, and at least by some sort of convenient, benign neglect, allowed it to go on through the election," he said. "I'm not making any allegations as to motive, that they set out to do it, but certainly people knew it was happening."
So it's his intuition. I think we've heard enough.
On phasing:
Secondly Issa is a sack of **** who also said the exact same thing about Benghazi and also has no evidence on that.
I am not saying you're wrong, because I haven't heard this claim, but why in the world would the Republicans sit on this before the election? This could have been a huge boon to them claiming Obama knew this was going on and letting the facts come out after they got their man elected...
No clue why they did what they did, but there's a substantial amount of evidence that GOP leadership knew about it in June.
http://www.politicususa.com/anatomy-bogus-scandal-gop-knew-irs-scrutiny-stayed-quiet-year.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/republicans-informed-of-irs-investigation-last-year/ (This says that ISSA was personally informed)
http://wonkette.com/517278/republicans-knew-about-irsgate-too-will-now-have-to-investigate-themselves
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/20/revealed-republicans-knew-about-irs-investigations-of-tea-party-groups-last-july/
Now I realize that some of these are super far left websites; they were the first hits on that one search engine. However, I am not agreeing with their commentary on the matter (mostly because I only ever read far enough to corroborate the fact claim that I made) but rather for the fact claim.
This (taken from the ABC report) may be the reason they "sat" on it.
"According the Issa aide, the committee received an email update from George in December saying, “We are leaving no stone unturned as part of our due diligence. As such, we won’t be able to provide a detailed, substantive briefing until late April/early May.”"
But 1) this is from an Issa aide with an unconfirmed email 2) theoretically took place in December, after the election which doesn't explain their silence from June-November and 3) isn't exactly like the Republican leadership to wait to corroborate a ton of evidence before calling it a scandal for Obama, especially when it's Darrell Issa; see: Benghazi.
This WSJ article says that the Obama Administration was informed in June as well and that Republicans were actually going public with it. Which I REALLY don't remember.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578488833834357540.html
http://www.politicususa.com/bad-news-republicans-irs-audit-determined.html
I would correct that statement to say "they have come to the conclusion that more groups need to be reviewed"
Again, the problem was never reviewieng conservative groups -- the problem was targeting conservative groups (specifically) for increased review. The article you linked is noticeably silent as to any targeted affiliation of the groups to be reviewed. Probably because that was the entire problem with the review process.
It bears repeating, AGAIN, that targeting and selecting groups for increased scrutiny ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
The fundamental problem was "George mentioned that inappropriate criteria were used by agents in Ohio, due to a lack of oversight, which was attributable to human challenges (read: lack of funding, and thank a Republican)." Basically, the IRS is even still admitting that what they did was wrong.
Also, "The audit 'determined that the majority of the 296 potential political cases we reviewed included indications of significant political campaign intervention.' This means that the majority reviewed were engaging in activities that warranted a review under the law."
So it sounds like their criteria of target groups with Tea Party in their name was actually a fairly good way of doing it since under that criteria, a majority of the audited groups deserved to be audited. In fact, only 19 groups using conservative name markers didn't require auditing.
Also, this wasn't because they were targeting conservative groups out of malice, but because they were understaffed and underfunded. "George mentioned that inappropriate criteria were used by agents in Ohio, due to a lack of oversight, which was attributable to human challenges (read: lack of funding, and thank a Republican)."
There's a very powerful skeptical saying called Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which could also be attributed to a convergence of stupidity and happenstance."
I agree that the info coming out of the inquiry seems to support that conservative groups that claimed religious or social function just happened to be pushing the boundaries of the law at the same time the IRS was cracking down on groups who do just that. Given the fact that several positions of the national conservative platform happen to be rooted in religious ideas, it should come as no surprise that conservative groups are being effected by the crackdown at a higher rate than progressive groups.
It'll take a smoking gun of a memo to prove that this was a witch hunt motivated by politics and spite rather than just an easily misinterpreted coincident.
Speculate less. Test more.
Look, you clearly have totally and completely missed the entire point of this thread, and I don't know how. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly. You are too busy happily defending the improper process performed by the IRS because it hurt *the other guy* and not *your guy* to see that the complaint is not, and and never has been about the results, but rather about the process.
This thread is not about the republicans getting "hosed" or "what they deserved". It's about the IRS using an improper metric to determine who to evaluate with greater scrutiny.
SOMETHING THEY HAVE CONTINUED ADMITTING, AND NOBODY HAS CONTESTED, THAT THEY ACTUALLY DID (Edit: well... nobody outside of this thread at least.)
I never said it was out of malice. In fact, I've been pretty consistently saying that I *didn't* think it was. The point has never been "raaaaaaaar they are targeting conservatives because they hate conservatives". The point has been "they are using inappropriate metrics to determine who to review, resulting in them improperly targeting a single political ideology."
You haven't been following this very closely at all, have you?
1) Religious affiliation is completely unrelated to this issue.
2) The IRS has openly admitted to improperly targeting terms associated with a single political ideology for increased scrutiny. It's not a "happenstance" or a "coincidence". It was an intentional action. Even if this action was taken in response to elevated levels of groups with that affiliation applying, it's still improper.
3) The complaint in this thread is not, and never has been, that conservative groups are being subject to increased scrutiny at a proportionately higher rate, but rather that because of the improper targeting metric used by the IRS the conservative groups are being *disproportionately* targeted at a higher rate. That higher rate being "100%".
I still maintain that it is not the fault of "citizens united" that this occurred. With proper support staff (comes with increased funding - which I'm not opposed to in this instance) proper evaluations can be made and groups not eligible *even under citizens united* can be weeded out.
I don't know enough of the specific details of the citizens united case to say if I agree with the holding or not, but I do know enough about the law in general to know that you can't just overturn cases because you don't like the outcome. The courts interpret the law, they do not make it.
Even if the law leads to undesirable outcomes.
As for "get rid of the culture within the conservative elements that want to exploit things like this" -- you may as well say "get rid of human nature." Some people may actually think that there are no elements in the liberal leaning parties in the US that would exploit what they see as a tax loophole, but that belief isn't supported by reality. Is it more prevelant in the conservative parties? Possibly -- I don't konw, but I can say with great confidence it is not *only* a problem in the consevative parties...
Citizens united happened and applications more than doubled.
Hence we need a constitutional ammendment which I am sure most Americans would agree
Did you miss the part where conservative nonprofits outspent liberal nonprofits by 34-1?