You might want to grab a tissue for the passion you are about to endure:
[youtube]-2Yamagms4s[/youtube]
Steven Miller: IRS Made Foolish Mistakes, I'm Accountable - YouTube
An apparatchik denies political motives? What a surprise!
I say one excellent explanation is that the players will often be unaware of the influence of their own or their boss's political bias. Did some in this fiasco have an overt agenda? I don't know, & don't claim that. I will speculate that in a related matter, Obama might have set up a relationship with his underlings to keep him unaware of embarrassing goings on in the interest of plausible deniability. Tis either that or he is very out of touch with his staff on material matters.
For more an even more entirely convincing preemptively written apologize, see:
[youtube]X8p4s7EE6FY[/youtube]
BP's Hayward at Hearing: 'Deeply Sorry' - YouTube
The apology was for a particular wrongdoing. They actually committed that wrongdoing. Are you making the analogy that the IRS also actually committed the misfeasance for which they apologized? (Note that I'm generous in not calling it "malfeasance" instead.)
Better way of saying it, keep the "There is a clear difference in my mind between "we're being target for being RIGHT-LEANING and political" and "we're being targeted because we're political in nature."" in mind.
Perhaps we'll some day see
all the BOLO terms used. You may find refuge in the possibility that leftish groups were targeted roughly equally too. I'm skeptical of that, since I'd have expected them to raise that defense.
Justify what? The facts still aren't out. You are wanting to me to condemn on conjecture; no thanks.
You've already justified political profiling by the IRS, which is why I wondered why you so strongly denied that they did what they apologized for.
I suppose I could consider you one who condones misrepresenting scientific studies since you did it regarding girly men and their economic beliefs, and then attempted to justify by pointing to lack of available information; but I wouldn't go that far.
You already did, hence my jab referring to this thread. Align with the noise up north in that game, & out come the claws. Play nice, & so will I....I'm flexible.
But, ya know, that's everyone's right and all, so...
To refuse to incriminate oneself certainly is one's right, but it hints at the possibility that the withheld info is incriminating.
Who did that? Steven Miller? "
Lois Lerner
I do not believe that partisanship motivated those who engaged in the practices described?"
I know you don't. But I see partisan bias as a more likely explanation than either chance or striving for good efficient policy.
I agree, and I don't agree with the usage of the word, but what about the second half of the sentence.. which is what I was trying to emphasize by using the quotation...
"but the life of the scandal depends entirely upon the political affiliation of the hundreds of other groups investigated by tax officials. "
It seems ordinary that fellows of the groups overly scrutinized would object. It is just as fellows of the left here will defend the IRS & attack Tea Partiers. I don't see any substantive issue in the political reactions on either side.
[qutoe]Nor do I, as I have no attachment to either.[/quote]
Good!
Two things... if the list comes out, which it will, and the stats are right, would that not have absolved the notions of "targeting the right" if only 25% of those targeted were actually on the right?
I can't speak to hypothetical numbers, but I'll deal with what I see.
Secondly, did I notice WHO apologized what you said, and WHEN, so I can go reference it.
This might be a useful link....
IRS apologizes for targeting tea party groups
Again, where was that in who's apology?
From the AP link....
Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.
"That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association.
"The IRS would like to apologize for that," she added.
If you don't want to dwell on red herrings, I'd suggest not making them by erroneously comparing this IRS situation to cops profiling minorities. (You know you love talking to me.) Cause if that "simile" was in any legitimate, my simple metaphor to show that just because something is being looked at doesn't mean it's being looked at unfairly was totally fine.
You disagree about the applicability of my analogy with profiling of drivers based upon race, but I say it works. You appeared to be introducing the issues welfare & food stamps as a new subject, rather than as illustrative analogies. If that weren't your intent, then we be good.
Organizations which educate on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are on the right?
Certainly, the Constitution should concern the left to, but I see a difference:
- The left tends to care less about what is actually written in the Constitution, & more about USSC decisions, ie, the "living document" philosophy.
- Conservatives tend to strict constructionists & originalists, thus placing more value on the Constitution itself.
Automatically? Where is the source for that, btw, if I may ask?
Here is one....
BOLO: Inspector General Report Finds IRS Engaged in Inappropriate Review Activity | Tax Foundation
And by virtue of the numbers provided so far, the IRS has targeted a broad range of political groups in general.
"In addition, the IRS commonly targets certain types of nonprofits for special scrutiny. In the past, these have included:
- nonprofits that conduct gambling fundraisers
- nonprofits engaged in joint ventures with for-profit companies
- nonprofits that sponsor travel tours
- credit counseling agencies
- donor advised funds
- hospitals
- colleges and universities
- community foundations
- nonprofits engaging in political activities
- student loan organizations, and
- nonprofits that fail to file required IRS returns."
Avoiding IRS Tax Audits of Your Nonprofit | Nolo.com
You talk of the "numbers", but I didn't see any related statistics in your post or link. NOLO doesn't seem the type of organization to provide that...it looks like they market legal services.
Still not that accurate. If the bumper sticker had something like, "Legalize Drinking & Driving," we'd be closer.
That's silly, since it's advocating something akin to legalized murder.
Why would I think black folk driving old cars in posh white neighborhoods are more likely to have nefarious intentions?
I don't...I speak to a common cop perception.
Crony capitalism makes the worst market & and the worst government. Cheers to the end. :beach:
I expect it to get worse as gov becomes ever more involved in regulation of business & campaign
finance, especially now that gov is becoming more accustomed to saving large failing companies.
