PDA

View Full Version : Obama IRSís Shulman had more public White House visits than any Cabinet member Read more:


Taco John
06-01-2013, 02:38 AM
Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/29/irss-shulman-had-more-public-white-house-visits-than-any-cabinet-member/


http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Obama-admin-visitors.jpg

peacepipe
06-01-2013, 03:14 AM
I hate to break the news to you TJ but the biggest problem with the daily caller is that they are nothing more than a cheap version of a tabloid,their storys are always made up.
This is another bogus story,which is easily debunked if you take the time to research it. It took me 30 seconds to debunk this one.
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/the-fake-story-about-the-irs-commissioner-and-the-white-house/276399/

Fedaykin
06-01-2013, 07:37 AM
The desperation with which the hard core right is clinging to this is quite palpable.

BroncoBeavis
06-01-2013, 08:18 AM
The desperation with which the hard core right is clinging to this is quite palpable.

Say the people arguing that "Just 'cuz he was in the White House Visitors' Log doesn't mean you can prove he visited the White House!" LOL

FYI, he was asked about the visits during Congressional testimony. About that specific number. He never denied having visited that many times. If they asked him why he visited hundreds of times, and he'd really only visited 11, don't you think we would've said something.

And if the truth were drastically less than 100+ visits, couldn't the White House clear the whole thing up by detailing who Shulman met with, and when? He's kind of an important figure in this mess. It's the public's right to know.

I mean the Obama administration seemed to think it was their right to know that much about a Fox News reporter and pretty much the entire AP. Here we have a Public employee visiting other public employees, and apparently who talked to who is suddenly some kind of state secret.

Meanwhile, you guys keep retreating to each marginally-plausible denial, calling every skeptic a right-wing hack. Then after watching your newest excuse dismantled before your very eyes, you latch onto the next branch on your way down.

TonyR
06-01-2013, 08:28 AM
I was waiting for someone to post this Daily Caller garbage. Here's a complete dismantling of this nonsense. What a joke.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/30/explain-this-mr-carlson/

peacepipe
06-01-2013, 08:36 AM
Say the people arguing that "Just 'cuz he was in the White House Visitors' Log doesn't mean you can prove he visited the White House!" LOL

FYI, he was asked about the visits during Congressional testimony. About that specific number. He never denied having visited that many times. If they asked him why he visited hundreds of times, and he'd really only visited 11, don't you think we would've said something.

And if the truth were drastically less than 100+ visits, couldn't the White House clear the whole thing up by detailing who Shulman met with, and when? He's kind of an important figure in this mess. It's the public's right to know.

I mean the Obama administration seemed to think it was their right to know that much about a Fox News reporter and pretty much the entire AP. Here we have a Public employee visiting other public employees, and apparently who talked to who is suddenly some kind of state secret.

Meanwhile, you guys keep retreating to each marginally-plausible denial, calling every skeptic a right-wing hack. Then after watching your newest excuse dismantled before your very eyes, you latch onto the next branch on your way down.lol daily caller gets caught making up stories on numerous occasions & here you are to defend them.

Fedaykin
06-01-2013, 08:43 AM
Say the people arguing that "Just 'cuz he was in the White House Visitors' Log doesn't mean you can prove he visited the White House!" LOL


Read peacepipe's article, dimwit.


FYI, he was asked about the visits during Congressional testimony. About that specific number. He never denied having visited that many times. If they asked him why he visited hundreds of times, and he'd really only visited 11, don't you think we would've said something.


Actually he did deny it, and then proceeded to make a bad joke too.


And if the truth were drastically less than 100+ visits, couldn't the White House clear the whole thing up by detailing who Shulman met with, and when? He's kind of an important figure in this mess. It's the public's right to know.


Read peacepipe's article, dimwit.


I mean the Obama administration seemed to think it was their right to know that much about a Fox News reporter and pretty much the entire AP. Here we have a Public employee visiting other public employees, and apparently who talked to who is suddenly some kind of state secret.


Yeah, because hunting down a national security leak is at all comparable.

:facepalm:



Meanwhile, you guys keep retreating to each marginally-plausible denial, calling every skeptic a right-wing hack. Then after watching your newest excuse dismantled before your very eyes, you latch onto the next branch on your way down.

LMAO. Projection!

BroncoBeavis
06-01-2013, 09:05 AM
Read peacepipe's article, dimwit.



Actually he did deny it, and then proceeded to make a bad joke too.



Read peacepipe's article, dimwit.



Yeah, because hunting down a national security leak is at all comparable.

:facepalm:




LMAO. Projection!

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WxQS280RgEA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ILwzIoaecqI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Two times Shulman was specifically asked about 100+ visits. Both by Republicans and Democrats. He never denied that fact. When asked for an estimate on how many visits, he couldn't even ballpark it.

You kids need to get your story straight. Did he really only visit 11 times? Or are you going to go with the patented tiered-denial. "You can't prove he visited that many times, but if he did, den you can't prove Obama did nuttin!" LOL

Meanwhile, his predecessor remembers visiting once. "Case Closed!" say the Cheerleaders in Blue.

Nobody's saying this proves anything. It simply opens up more questions that need further investigation.

TonyR
06-01-2013, 09:11 AM
You kids need to get your story straight. Did he really only visit 11 times?

I certainly never said anything about him visiting only 11 times. Go click the link I posted above and read the whole thing.

BroncoBeavis
06-01-2013, 09:27 AM
I certainly never said anything about him visiting only 11 times. Go click the link I posted above and read the whole thing.

No, it just highlights the convenient level of parsing we have here. The Goooooobamanauts are honestly arguing that just because Shulman was scheduled for an unusual number of White House meetings, that doesn't mean he "attended" an unusual number of White House meetings.

Apparently until we have DNA samples from each visit, absolutely nothing can be derived from the fact that the IRS Commish was in the White House Visitor Logs more than virtually anyone else.

TonyR
06-01-2013, 09:30 AM
No, it just highlights the convenient level of parsing we have here. The Goooooobamanauts are honestly arguing that just because Shulman was scheduled for an unusual number of White House meetings, that doesn't mean he "attended" an unusual number of White House meetings.

Apparently until we have DNA samples from each visit, absolutely nothing can be derived from the fact that the IRS Commish was in the White House Visitor Logs more than virtually anyone else.

I'm not sure if you read the whole piece I linked but I think this part alone pretty much pulls the plug on your "smoking gun":

I just downloaded the logs for Shulmanís visits, most of the visits are with Nancy DeParle (40) or Sarah Fenn (54), both of whom were deeply involved in health care policy. The only other person to have more than 10 visits was Jason Furman from the CEA (11). If the White House was hatching a conspiracy, it seems hard to believe these would be the people doing it.http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/30/explain-this-mr-carlson/

houghtam
06-01-2013, 09:32 AM
No, it just highlights the convenient level of parsing we have here. The Goooooobamanauts are honestly arguing that just because Shulman was scheduled for an unusual number of White House meetings, that doesn't mean he "attended" an unusual number of White House meetings.

Apparently until we have DNA samples from each visit, absolutely nothing can be derived from the fact that the IRS Commish was in the White House Visitor Logs more than virtually anyone else.

"I don't like websites or graphs (unless they fit my ideology)."

- Beavis

Fedaykin
06-01-2013, 09:38 AM
Two times Shulman was specifically asked about 100+ visits. Both by Republicans and Democrats. He never denied that fact. When asked for an estimate on how many visits, he couldn't even ballpark it.

You kids need to get your story straight. Did he really only visit 11 times? Or are you going to go with the patented tiered-denial. "You can't prove he visited that many times, but if he did, den you can't prove Obama did nuttin!" LOL

Meanwhile, his predecessor remembers visiting once. "Case Closed!" say the Cheerleaders in Blue.

Nobody's saying this proves anything. It simply opens up more questions that need further investigation.

Nice strawmen you're arguing against. You really do love your strawmen.

But again, read the articles from peacepipe and Tony, dimwit.

118 (or whatever the number is) times is not

a.) the number of times he actually visited -- it's the number of meetings he has security clearance to attend.

b.) the meetings were not at the white house with Obama -- there were at the executive complex with various bureaucrats in charge of health care reform work.

The desperate attempt to frame the situation as Shullman visting Obama bi-weekly to engage in a conspiracy to harass political opponents is nothing but pure fiction. It's not supported by the facts presented nor logic.

Do you really expect that the head of the IRS has no business having scheduled meetings with various bureaucrats in charge of reform that the IRS is intimately involved in? That what administrators do: they have meetings with other high level folks.

Fedaykin
06-01-2013, 09:39 AM
No, it just highlights the convenient level of parsing we have here. The Goooooobamanauts are honestly arguing that just because Shulman was scheduled for an unusual number of White House meetings, that doesn't mean he "attended" an unusual number of White House meetings.

Apparently until we have DNA samples from each visit, absolutely nothing can be derived from the fact that the IRS Commish was in the White House Visitor Logs more than virtually anyone else.

LMAO. Read the articles, dimwit. You're only embarrassing yourself now.

BroncoBeavis
06-01-2013, 09:56 AM
I'm not sure if you read the whole piece I linked but I think this part alone pretty much pulls the plug on your "smoking gun":

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/30/explain-this-mr-carlson/

Sullivan's already behind with his analysis. Which isn't surprising. He's smart, but reliably slow on the uptake when inconvenient facts block his way.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-questions-for-nancy-deparle-on-the-irs-scandal/article/2530414

It is important to note that DeParle was not simply a health care-focused policy wonk, but rather a veteran government operative serving Democratic presidents. Prior to working in the Obama White House, DeParle was director of the Health Care Financing Administration under President Clinton and also worked for him at the Office of Management and Budget. She is, to be sure, best known for her role in the Obamacare campaign, including her "Internet Brigade" idea. That was to be a taxpayer-funded swarm of Internet-based snitches dedicated to exposing and opposing those judged to be spreading "disinformation about health insurance reform."

But DeParle's role in the Obama inner circle was not limited to health care issues. She was also part of the administration's political strategizing, as seen in a Feb. 25, 2011 memo from Obama Department of Energy political appointee Dan Carol to DeParle warning about the "wave of GOP attacks that are surely coming over Solyndra and other inside deals that have gone to Obama donors and underperformed." It was in that same memo that Carol recommended firing then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu, so DeParle clearly was a participant in White House political strategizing on highly sensitive political issues other than health care reform.

The funny thing is you act like any kind of inappropriate political influence could only be established by something in the White House log saying:

"President Meeting with Shulman again on Operation Teepee the Teepee"

Remember, the official story was a few Rogue IRS employees. Now that's all blown to ****, and one of the guys responsible for hiding this bad boy from Congress for a year gets a ton of face time with White House political operatives, and now we're just supposed to accept the next level of denial as the real and final truth.

Like I said, this isn't proof. Just something that needs to be gone through. Thoroughly. Because, contrary to popular belief, when corrupt government officials go wild, they don't generally take pictures of themselves signing their name at the bottom. And even if it doesn't go all the way to the President, the issue is clearly much larger than they made it out to be. Now we need to find out how much so.

houghtam
06-01-2013, 10:17 AM
Sullivan's already behind with his analysis. Which isn't surprising. He's smart, but reliably slow on the uptake when inconvenient facts block his way.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-questions-for-nancy-deparle-on-the-irs-scandal/article/2530414



The funny thing is you act like any kind of inappropriate political influence could only be established by something in the White House log saying:

"President Meeting with Shulman again on Operation Teepee the Teepee"

Remember, the official story was a few Rogue IRS employees. Now that's all blown to ****, and one of the guys responsible for hiding this bad boy from Congress for a year gets a ton of face time with White House political operatives, and now we're just supposed to accept the next level of denial as the real and final truth.

Like I said, this isn't proof. Just something that needs to be gone through. Thoroughly. Because, contrary to popular belief, when corrupt government officials go wild, they don't generally take pictures of themselves signing their name at the bottom. And even if it doesn't go all the way to the President, the issue is clearly much larger than they made it out to be. Now we need to find out how much so.

Look, more preconceived excuses for when nothing inevitably comes out of this. Surprise!

BroncoBeavis
06-01-2013, 10:27 AM
Look, more preconceived excuses for when nothing inevitably comes out of this. Surprise!

Well, we've already established that Obama's chief legal council and Chief of Staff knew about the IRS thing for (at least) weeks whilst our Mastermind President had to find out about it on CNN (or more likely MSNBC :) )

We've seen that there's no level of implausibility these guys won't swallow for their man.

But like I said earlier. You can feel free to believe he has no clue what his government does. That he's completely inept, yet not corrupt. But either is still an indictment of his political ideology.

barryr
06-04-2013, 09:30 AM
Yep, "change" and "transparency" by this admin. It's just so overwhelming.

elsid13
06-04-2013, 10:08 AM
Actually he wasn't visiting Obama, he was seeing the Lizard Men that run this country. They are pushing him and Obama to take away our guns and dope us up through socialized medicine so they can turn us into their feed cattle. The Lizard Men want him to destroy the Tea Party because it's our last hope of survival

Rohirrim
06-04-2013, 10:46 AM
Actually he wasn't visiting Obama, he was seeing the Lizard Men that run this country. They are pushing him and Obama to take away our guns and dope us up through socialized medicine so they can turn us into their feed cattle. The Lizard Men want him to destroy the Tea Party because it's our last hope of survival

Under the aegis of the Rothchilds and the Bilderberg Group, of course.

elsid13
06-04-2013, 02:16 PM
Under the aegis of the Rothchilds and the Bilderberg Group, of course.

Great now you given it all away. Please ensure that you are home tonight, so when the black-hawks show up that we don't have to look for you. We have alot of folks to intern tonight in our UN black sites and Your cooperation on this matter is greatly appreciated! .

Signed

Lizard men's henchmen.

BroncoBeavis
06-04-2013, 03:16 PM
Great now you given it all away. Please ensure that you are home tonight, so when the black-hawks show up that we don't have to look for you. We have alot of folks to intern tonight in our UN black sites and Your cooperation on this matter is greatly appreciated! .

Signed

Lizard men's henchmen.

It used to be Darth Cheney's henchmen. I guess the more things hopenchange, the more they stay the same. LOL

frerottenextelway
06-04-2013, 03:23 PM
Why are these tea party activists seeking tax free shelter anyway? Seems like tax fraud to me. Are they seriously non-political?

BroncoBeavis
06-04-2013, 03:31 PM
Why are these tea party activists seeking tax free shelter anyway? Seems like tax fraud to me. Are they seriously non-political?

You'd better hope not. Considering Sebelius just admitted to pushing the companies she regulates to 'donate' funds to a similar tax exempt entity run by not-very-former Obama admin officials to promote Obamacare.

Is that seriously non-political? Or is the administration also guilty of tax fraud?

frerottenextelway
06-04-2013, 04:34 PM
You'd better hope not. Considering Sebelius just admitted to pushing the companies she regulates to 'donate' funds to a similar tax exempt entity run by not-very-former Obama admin officials to promote Obamacare.

Is that seriously non-political? Or is the administration also guilty of tax fraud?

I was just reading an article earlier where 75% off all potential political tax free "non-profits" were audited, on both sides. And really, that should be 100%. Seriously, why the fk should these groups get away without paying their taxes?

And it's hilarious what are almost all Bush appointees are in a big conspiracy with Obama. You guys wonder why you guys have no credibility and are mocked by this country, take a look at yourselves. America can recognize grown-ups and bitter children.

BroncoBeavis
06-04-2013, 04:40 PM
I was just reading an article earlier where 75% off all potential political tax free "non-profits" were audited, on both sides. And really, that should be 100%. Seriously, why the fk should these groups get away without paying their taxes?

And it's hilarious what are almost all Bush appointees are in a big conspiracy with Obama. You guys wonder why you guys have no credibility and are mocked by this country, take a look at yourselves. America can recognize grown-ups and bitter children.

I've got news for you. It's going to be hard for you to take, so you might want to sit down.....

Most Government Employees are Democrats.

dun dun DUNNNNNNNNN.

And they don't all suddenly lose their jobs whenever a Republican gets elected. I guess maybe you're arguing that should change?

I'd say from the looks of this scandal, a large scale purge IS probably in order.

I'm still in shock that an internal auditor (the IG) can come in and ask employees "Hey, who ordered you to do this?" And they can just say "I don't want to tell you." And then just go on about their work as if nothing had happened. Where else in the world would that kind of explanation fly? (alongside your continued employment)

Exhibit 73297 - How you know your government is completely out of control.

errand
06-04-2013, 10:40 PM
Yep, "change" and "transparency" by this admin. It's just so overwhelming.

I guess none of the liberals on here find it odd that the former head of the IRS goes to the WH more than anyone else during the same time conservatives are targeted and harrassed by the IRS......

barryr
06-05-2013, 09:47 PM
I guess none of the liberals on here find it odd that the former head of the IRS goes to the WH more than anyone else during the same time conservatives are targeted and harrassed by the IRS......

Ah, he was just there for the Easter egg hunts. It's just all a coincidence. In their world, democrats are never involved in scandals.

BroncoInferno
06-06-2013, 06:32 AM
Most Government Employees are Democrats.

Your evidence?

BroncoBeavis
06-06-2013, 08:46 AM
Your evidence?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000022300

oh, and common sense. LOL

barryr
06-06-2013, 10:32 AM
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000022300

oh, and common sense. LOL

Doesn't look like a liberal website, so they won't believe those numbers. I'm surprised Romney even got that much. But democrats historically are the ones campaigning for larger government, so makes sense as you stated.

TonyR
06-06-2013, 01:52 PM
And one wonders why the Fox News crowd is so stirred up...

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/04/how-out-of-it-is-bob-woodward/

TonyR
06-06-2013, 02:05 PM
Congressional investigators have not produced evidence to link the harassment of conservative groups to the White House or to higher-ups in the Obama administration. But the lack of evidence that any political appointee was involved hasnít stopped the lawmakers from assuming that it simply must be true. And so, they are going to hold hearings until they confirm their conclusions.http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-accuse-and-ask-questions-later/2013/06/03/d107e9e0-cc9c-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

LOL

BroncoBeavis
06-06-2013, 03:22 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-accuse-and-ask-questions-later/2013/06/03/d107e9e0-cc9c-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

LOL

This thing's only a couple weeks old Chief. I suppose you're gonna tell me that every investigation that ever happened had everything wrapped up in a week or two. The Abu Ghraib stuff went on for years. Sit back and relax... more trickles in every day.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/wsj-irs-employees-in-cincinnati-say-they-took

Two officials in the Internal Revenue Service's Cincinnati office said that officials in Washington helped direct the targeting of conservative and tea party groups that started in 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported late Wednesday.

The pair of Cincinnati officials made the comments to Congressional investigators, according to transcripts that were reviewed by the Journal.

One such official, Elizabeth Hofacre, told investigators that she "had no autonomy or no authority to act on" applications from conservative or tea party groups without input from one of the agency's lawyers in Washington. The other, Gary Muthert, said that he was told by a local manager in Cincinnati that "Washington, D.C. wanted some cases."

Case Closed! Say the team players. LOL

peacepipe
06-06-2013, 03:37 PM
I guess none of the liberals on here find it odd that the former head of the IRS goes to the WH more than anyone else during the same time conservatives are targeted and harrassed by the IRS......

I find it odd you believe stories even after they've been debunked....then again, it is you we are talking about here.

BroncoBeavis
06-06-2013, 04:07 PM
I find it odd you believe stories even after they've been debunked....then again, it is you we are talking about here.

And by "debunked" you mean "there are no photos or recordings of him talking to the President about jerking the Tea Party Around"

peacepipe
06-06-2013, 04:28 PM
And by "debunked" you mean "there are no photos or recordings of him talking to the President about jerking the Tea Party Around"

Reading comprehension not your cup of tea?

BroncoBeavis
06-06-2013, 05:06 PM
Reading comprehension not your cup of tea?

I read enough to see that Sully basically holds the same standard as the rest of all y'all.

If the President didn't personally sign the order, then nobody really did anything wrong.

Good luck with that precedent in the future. LOL

peacepipe
06-06-2013, 05:20 PM
I read enough to see that Sully basically holds the same standard as the rest of all y'all.

If the President didn't personally sign the order, then nobody really did anything wrong.

Good luck with that precedent in the future. LOL

What does sully have to do with my post in reply to errand?

BroncoBeavis
06-06-2013, 06:29 PM
What does sully have to do with my post in reply to errand?

Where else was the Shulman visits story 'debunked'?

TonyR
06-06-2013, 06:53 PM
Where else was the Shulman visits story 'debunked'?

Here's one example.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/the-fake-story-about-the-irs-commissioner-and-the-white-house/276399/

peacepipe
06-06-2013, 07:00 PM
Where else was the Shulman visits story 'debunked'?

Does it matter who debunks it. Fact is the daily caller story is bogus.

Repeatedly pushing BS,doesn't make it true.

BroncoBeavis
06-06-2013, 10:05 PM
Does it matter who debunks it. Fact is the daily caller story is bogus.

Repeatedly pushing BS,doesn't make it true.

Again, Shulman was asked under oath twice about visiting the WH more than a hundred times. He did not dispute the number either time.

Vegas_Bronco
06-06-2013, 11:28 PM
Poor poor Obama, if he's re-elected, look at the mess he'll have inherited.

TonyR
06-07-2013, 08:01 AM
Almost one third of the tax-exemption applications selected for additional scrutiny by the IRS were from groups that were not conservative.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/these-liberal-groups-prove-the-irs-didnt-just-target-conservatives/276536/

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 08:42 AM
Almost one third of the tax-exemption applications selected for additional scrutiny by the IRS were from groups that were not conservative.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/these-liberal-groups-prove-the-irs-didnt-just-target-conservatives/276536/

Funny, so as long as they do a little bit of actual work on the side of their harassing one particular group, you ok wit dat. LOL

TonyR
06-07-2013, 09:21 AM
Funny, so as long as they do a little bit of actual work on the side of their harassing one particular group, you ok wit dat.

Funny, the leaps of logic you make...

Who said I was okay with anything? I certainly didn't. Isn't/wasn't one of the major points that someone (Obama?!?) was targeting conservative groups? And doesn't this information bring that point into question? These are rhetorical questions, the answers to which you clearly want to avoid. Thus posts like one I'm responding to.

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 09:30 AM
Funny, the leaps of logic you make...

Who said I was okay with anything? I certainly didn't. Isn't/wasn't one of the major points that someone (Obama?!?) was targeting conservative groups? And doesn't this information bring that point into question? These are rhetorical questions, the answers to which you clearly want to avoid. Thus posts like one I'm responding to.

So if the Bush IRS tax audit division had selected 75% Democrats vs 25% Republican-or-Indie for latex-glove style audits, based on those criteria alone, you'd say that was evidence that there was nothing shady going on?

And that's not even getting into the nature of the full-fisting "Tell me your prayers and leave Planned Parenthood Alone!" treatment the IRS was dishing out.

"Hey yeah, but we asked a few other groups some questions too!" says the IRS

"See! Nothing really all that bad happened!" Says the ObamaTone.

TonyR
06-07-2013, 09:32 AM
So...

I point out your leaps of logic, you dish up more of the same.

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 09:56 AM
I point out your leaps of logic, you dish up more of the same.

Leaps of Logic? Textbook...

Isn't/wasn't one of the major points that someone (Obama?!?) was targeting conservative groups? And doesn't this information bring that point into question?

I guess Cops can't be racially profiling so long as they pull a white dude over every now and again. Or sorry, in Tonyspeak it would "bring the concept of racial profiling into question" LOL

TonyR
06-07-2013, 01:08 PM
This doesnít tell us anything definitive about the entire set of groups that got special scrutiny. If the whole set is similar to the approved set, then about two-thirds were conservative and one-third liberalómost likely because of the boom in new tea party groups in 2010. But thatís just a guess. One thing isnít a guess, however: Two-thirds of the groups who were approved for tax-exempt status were conservative. If the IRS was on a partisan witch hunt against conservative groups, thatís sure an odd way of showing it, isnít it? http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/reports-says-irs-approved-tax-exempt-status-twice-many-conservative-groups-libera

BroncoBeavis
06-07-2013, 01:28 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/reports-says-irs-approved-tax-exempt-status-twice-many-conservative-groups-libera

More administrative Slobknobbing. Not surprising. Here's why this line of argument can't add up...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/irs-tea-party-discriminate_n_3294835.html

3. No tea party group applications for non-profit status were approved for 27 months, staring in February 2010, while numerous liberal groups sailed through the process, USA Today reported this week.

Perhaps it will emerge that of the 202 non-tea party groups whose applications are being held up, a large number are liberal or progressive. But the fact that the tea party BOLO was the only search term with a political focus during this time period suggests that's unlikely.

You can't make the argument that the issue was one of proportionality when the number of Tea Party apps that were cleared during the targeting was Zero. 0. None. With no explanation. All we know is they specifically searched for them and then placed them in regulation purgatory.

Meanwhile numerous more-progressive political-looking 501 applications sailed through. It's just sad that your stream of excuses means these same simple points need to be gone over again and again. Even the IRS knows this was discriminatory. It's all on the table. But you keep dancin' this thing back and forth between "They didn't really do anything wrong" and "You can't prove Obama knew nuttin!" Can we decide which line of defense you're taking once and for all and just work it from there? LOL

txtebow
06-08-2013, 07:13 PM
I was waiting for someone to post this Daily Caller garbage. Here's a complete dismantling of this nonsense. What a joke.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/30/explain-this-mr-carlson/

why do you have such a pathetic existence that you were "waiting for someone to post this "Daily Caller Garbage" on the 'Mane? You really need to seek some professional attention...............And that goes for anyone else who is just waiting for someone to make a point just so that you can offer your 'counter point' on the Orangemane.....Hilarious!