IRS gave extra scrutiny to liberal groups as well

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-also-targeted-at-least-three-liberal-groups/

but who cares about that, eh?

i mean, it's not like there were a whole bunch of tea party groups emerging out of nowhere, eh?


No, no. I've been waiting for this. Some show of an even hand. I don't believe anything. So, if the scrutiny was the same, then lets have some facts about that.

- Were these groups identified by parsing lists for "obnoxious" names?
- Were they subject to long times between communications for status of application...months roll by?
- Were they sent pages of improper questions?
- Were they then sent the same questions in different formats and wording?
- Were they actually harassed?

But, I really don't understand, yet. There were some 500 conservative groups we know of, that were targeted. But, it is like pulling teeth from mad dogs.

How many progressive groups were targeted, and how?
 
Why do you care when you contribute nothing to any of it? Maybe if you paid into the system, but you are a leach waiting for a paycheck, sit back and you'll get what's coming from those who produce it for your ass.

But, he is a tall good looking guy with a GQ beard. How can you say that? Take it back.
 
I just realized the righties actually are into a form of collectivism. Collective misery. They want to make sure everyone suffers toil, drudgery and surveillance equally. That's why they love austerity too.
 
I guess I haven't been paying attention lately AC. Is government austerity a bad thing in anarchy world?
 
Did the IRS also lie to Congress about their activities investigating conservative groups? Yes, they did.

Should the IRS be involved in subverting the free political speech rights of Americans in order to stymy Obama's political opponents?

Hey, if you put it that way it sounds like you are trying to say Obama is un-cool or something...a !gulp!, RBP.
Nah...we aren't there, yet. :)
 
No, no. I've been waiting for this. Some show of an even hand. I don't believe anything. So, if the scrutiny was the same, then lets have some facts about that.

- Were these groups identified by parsing lists for "obnoxious" names?
- Were they subject to long times between communications for status of application...months roll by?
- Were they sent pages of improper questions?
- Were they then sent the same questions in different formats and wording?
- Were they actually harassed?

But, I really don't understand, yet. There were some 500 conservative groups we know of, that were targeted. But, it is like pulling teeth from mad dogs.

How many progressive groups were targeted, and how?

Bumping some good questions. cn
 
Deciphering...

"I have kept my eyes and ears shut to keep information out. What is Anarchy?"


The whole system is fucked bro.

Well, I at least thank you for answering the question with a real answer.. instead of being a total dick and calling me stupid.

Anarchy is without government. I would think austerity would mean jack shit to an anarchist, yet you seem to be blaming an attempt to decreased centralized spending. I'm just wondering how anyone who calls themselves an anarchistic can feel a reduction in centralized state power in ANYTHING is a bad idea. Your views just seem really inconsistent to me.

I guess a simpler way to explain it is: Anarchy good, Austerity bad seems off. Would you mind explaining how the two beliefs co-exist? I'm an anarchist, but I want my central planners well funded....
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-also-targeted-at-least-three-liberal-groups/

but who cares about that, eh?

i mean, it's not like there were a whole bunch of tea party groups emerging out of nowhere, eh?

At least three from a wonkblog bahahaha fucking epic Bucky. Goddamn you like to drool over everything. What I also didn't see why they were scrutinized maybe they fucked up on their application?

Bucky this totally derails an Inspector Generals report of the IRS intentionally targeting conservative groups. hahahaha
 
Well, I at least thank you for answering the question with a real answer.. instead of being a total dick and calling me stupid.

Anarchy is without government. I would think austerity would mean jack shit to an anarchist, yet you seem to be blaming an attempt to decreased centralized spending. I'm just wondering how anyone who calls themselves an anarchistic can feel a reduction in centralized state power in ANYTHING is a bad idea. Your views just seem really inconsistent to me.

I guess a simpler way to explain it is: Anarchy good, Austerity bad seems off. Would you mind explaining how the two beliefs co-exist? I'm an anarchist, but I want my central planners well funded....

You're not an anarchist. You're a capitalist.

Laissez faire can't exist with out a state to protect private property. If you're pushing "voluntaryism", well that isn't anarchy either, that's feudalism, the private state.

I'm not just bashing austerity, I'm bashing capitalism altogether.

I mentioned austerity not to criticize or support it, but to point out that you're a collectivist. Austerity is collective misery. Well, I guess I am criticizing it.
 
I'm not claiming to be an anarchist in that statement. I was pointing out what I don't understand. How you can say this;
"I'm an anarchist who believes in well funded central planning".

Your answer never addressed the question.
 
Ok, since you refuse to answer that question with a real reply, let me ask this.

How can being against austerity NOT mean you are for well funded central planning? I see now even you can't reconcile in your head anarchy and strong central planning. I probably wouldn't have went with calling it a strawman if I were you, but since you did, how is it a strawman?

AC: "I'm an anarchist who believes austerity is bad because the central planners need the money but I'm not saying I believe in well funded central planning, that's a strawman"
 
Back
Top