your article only stated that a few lib keywords were used...there was no mention that or if those groups after being "identified" were subjected to the same harassment that the conservative groups alleged...

they clearly targeted and impeded conservative groups...not sure regarding the lib groups...we'll assume that they(libs) wouldn't mind..OK

The DOJ concluded that conservative groups were specifically targeted because of their ideology. Come on, Paul.

They looked at keywords, ideology, etc. bc they were trying to determine if they were social orgs. and not political. Low level ees made that decision.

What did Obama have to do w/it other than fire the head of the agency bc Obama viewed it as wrong?

I guess the moral is that the Repub. shouldn't starve an agency of the necessary funds to do its job.

I thought they were stretched thin because Obamacare was taking all their time and effort

why?

BC to be a nonprofit there are certain requirements. Maybe there are different type of nonprofit status' and for the status they were applying required they not engage in political activities.

"Low level ees made that decision. " Agreed. But it happened. You seemed to be saying that conservatives were not targeted by the IRS.

"What did Obama have to do w/it "

Nothing. It happened on his watch though. Except these employees, presumably, thought they were doing the just thing. I wonder where they got that idea.

you can't seem to settle on whether it was ok because they did it to everyone, or that it's not ok, or that it was intentional or that it was a mistake

NM

See post 80.

The Justice Dept didn't conclude (I don't think) that liberal groups were targeted specifically for their politics. Conservatives were.

Wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1131287) See post 80.

I've not seen anything to indicate that any liberal groups were similarly "subjected to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding some Plaintiffs’ information that TITA determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status"


have you?.....that would be the important difference which the IRS admitted to and apologized for and settled over as a result ...and that you are conveniently ignoring though it has been pointed out repeatedly

From the 122 page treasury inspector general report.

"While most of the potentially political applications that the IRS set aside for heightened scrutiny were Tea Party and conservative groups, the IRS also flagged some left-leaning tax-exempt applicants for processing. In order to centralize these cases for review and processing, names and descriptions of several left-leaning groups were placed on the BOLO spreadsheet. Some left-leaning applicants experienced lengthy processing delays and inappropriate and burdensome requests for information."

wow...several.....so more than two but not many more than two...I think that's the definition

But Spence says "wrong". I mean, when someone says "wrong", that is a very compelling, convincing, one-word argument...With so much supporting his opinion, it's hard to argue with it...What does the DOJ know, anyway?

I think George Carlin would say...." 469 to several(more than two but not many more than 2)..hmmmmm......that's quite a ratio"