IRS targeting included Liberal groups: terms "occupy" "progressive"

[dank69]

You spout the same childish horseshit in every post you make. Get some new material.

Every time you say the sky is green, we will be here to remind you that it is blue. Every time.

 

[shadow9d9]

You spout the same childish horseshit in every post you make. Get some new material.

Huh? Our democrats are more to the right than the conservatives of all other first world countries.. and Obama has been demonstrably more right wing than previous democratic presidents. There is nothing "liberal" about him.. he used the Republicans' own thinktank's bill for healthcare for heaven's sake! There is nothing even resembling liberal bills coming out of washington, plus Obama has continued most of Bush's policies...

 

[Atreus21]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...nally-thought-contrary-reports-eliana-johnson

Acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel on Monday told reporters that the now-infamous “Be On The Lookout” list was far broader than was originally disclosed in the Treasury Department inspector general’s report. Reports from outlets including the Associated Press, which I cited in my original report, and now Bloomberg News, confirmed Werfel’s account, indicating that various versions of the list not only included terms like “tea party” but also “progressive,” “occupy,” and “Israel.”

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) groups are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off ”to Group 7822″ for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.

The AP reported earlier on Monday that “Terms including ‘Israel,’ ’Progressive’ and ‘Occupy’ were used by agency workers to help pick groups for closer examination.” That appears to be misleading, as there is no indication from the list examined by NRO that progressive groups were singled out for heightened scrutiny in a manner similar to tea-party groups. Cases involving healthcare legislation, however, were. “New applications are subject to secondary screening in Group 7821,” the list notes.

Also sent along for more further examination were applications involving ”disputed territories in the Middle East,” in particular, those that advocated a “one sided point of view,” which perhaps explains the testimony of Cincinnati screener Gary Muthert, who told commitee investigators that the applications of pro-Israel groups went to an antiterrorism unit within the agency.

Based on the lookout list examined by NRO, however, it is inaccurate to say that the applications of progressive and liberal groups were subjected to the same scrutiny as those of tea-party groups, or even that a surprisingly broad array of criteria was applied to screen applications for tax exemption.

 

[Atreus21]

Huh? Our democrats are more to the right than the conservatives of all other first world countries..

Can you post some examples?

 

[irishScott]

Huh? Our democrats are more to the right than the conservatives of all other first world countries.. and Obama has been demonstrably more right wing than previous democratic presidents. There is nothing "liberal" about him.. he used the Republicans' own thinktank's bill for healthcare for heaven's sake! There is nothing even resembling liberal bills coming out of washington, plus Obama has continued most of Bush's policies...

When discussing the politics of any given country, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" apply relative to the internal politics of that country.

No, you don't get to choose your own definitions.


Literally every post I've seen you make involves this one issue. It's kinda sad. In this forum you're one of the autistic kids at the regular kids' lunch table; and you apparently don't even know it.

 

[Bowfinger]

When discussing the politics of any given country, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" apply relative to the internal politics of that country.

No, you don't get to choose your own definitions.


Literally every post I've seen you make involves this one issue. It's kinda sad. In this forum you're one of the autistic kids at the regular kids' lunch table; and you apparently don't even know it.

I think what you're missing is that there are true liberals in the U.S. They simply aren't represented well by a major party. There are many Americans who complain that the Democratic party is too far to the right, but they are splintered in their politics. Some support Dems as the less bad choice, some are Greens, and some even support the Socialist party. So, when we look at America's total ideological spectrum, we have the GOP that's increasingly far right, the Democrats that are somewhere near the center, and various minor parties to the left of the Dems -- sometimes well to the left of them.

 

[dank69]

When discussing the politics of any given country, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" apply relative to the internal politics of that country.

No, you don't get to choose your own definitions.


Literally every post I've seen you make involves this one issue. It's kinda sad. In this forum you're one of the autistic kids at the regular kids' lunch table; and you apparently don't even know it.

That's because batshit insane Republicans dragging their party so far to the right that Reagan is now considered "a leftist" doesn't mean you get to redefine the normal spectrum for our country.

 

[irishScott]

I think what you're missing is that there are true liberals in the U.S. They simply aren't represented well by a major party. There are many Americans who complain that the Democratic party is too far to the right, but they are splintered in their politics. Some support Dems as the less bad choice, some are Greens, and some even support the Socialist party. So, when we look at America's total ideological spectrum, we have the GOP that's increasingly far right, the Democrats that are somewhere near the center, and various minor parties to the left of the Dems -- sometimes well to the left of them.

Well yeah if you include meaningless fringe groups "conservative" means "fascist" and "liberal" means "anarchist."

No one, when discussing US politics, uses the term "liberal" as synonymous with "socialist", or "green".

Like it or not, "liberal" when discussing US politics means the left side of the Democratic party. Unless you're changing the definition for the purposes of discussion and all parties agree on it. The outbursts shadow keeps posting are just forum fapping. "GEE LOOK AT ME I KNOW DA REALZ DEFINITIONS OF LIBERUL I SO KOOL AND SUPEEREEORRRRRR TO U!!!111!!1oneone1!"

 

[irishScott]

That's because batshit insane Republicans dragging their party so far to the right that Reagan is now considered "a leftist" doesn't mean you get to redefine the normal spectrum for our country.

I haven't defined anything. I'm apparently educating an ignorant forum on the accepted definitions of the words they fail at using.

 

[dank69]

I haven't defined anything. I'm apparently educating an ignorant forum on the accepted definitions of the words they fail at using.

You aren't educating anyone. You are pointlessly arguing semantics. You even admit that liberal refers to the "left side of the Democratic party." Guess what? Obama is on the right side of the Democartic party, which is to the right of many previous Republicans.

 

[irishScott]

You aren't educating anyone. You are pointlessly arguing semantics.

No, I was calling out Shadow on his behavior. You and bowfinger are trying to argue for some reason.

Not that there is any argument. All I'm doing is affirming common definitions. If you want to deny such definitions exist when discussing US politics, well I suppose that's your prerogative.

Next we can "argue" about the word "human". I'll say that it means a member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and you can tell me how wrong I am and that there are no true humans on Earth or whatever.

 

[irishScott]

You even admit that liberal refers to the "left side of the Democratic party." Guess what? Obama is on the right side of the Democartic party, which is to the right of many previous Republicans.

That's incessantly debatable and I'm not derailing the thread.

 

[Bowfinger]

Well yeah if you include meaningless fringe groups "conservative" means "fascist" and "liberal" means "anarchist."

No one, when discussing US politics, uses the term "liberal" as synonymous with "socialist", or "green".

Like it or not, "liberal" when discussing US politics means the left side of the Democratic party. Unless you're changing the definition for the purposes of discussion and all parties agree on it. ...

I think you're spinning a bit to match your agenda, but I have no trouble agreeing the "left side of the Democratic party" is liberal. That's the first time I've seen you add that qualification, however. It's an important distinction because it underscores the fundamental ignorance of those who bleat about Democrats and/or Obama being extreme leftists. It's empty-headed partisan nonsense.

Perhaps more to the point, you have no more right to define "liberal" than those you're challenging. The RNC has redefined "liberal" to suit its propaganda. As you have demonstrated, this has been quite successful with a great many right-leaning Americans. Theirs is not the only definition, however, as Shadow9d9 and many others here have pointed out regularly. (And as far as the rest of the world is concerned, America has two conservative parties, but we'll set that aside.) That's really the underlying issue, that "liberal" does not mean the same thing to everyone, making the word rather useless in most discussions. The same applies to "conservative", though perhaps to a lesser extent. There are people on the right fringe of the GOP who consider the mainstream Republican party to be too liberal, and Republican icons like Ronald Reagan would be considered liberal by many Republicans today.

 

[Incorruptible]

You spout the same childish horseshit in every post you make. Get some new material.

The disturbing part is that he actually believes this BS. How is obama on the right?

 

[Bowfinger]

Speaking of "empty-headed partisan nonsense" ...

 

[DominionSeraph]

Well yeah if you include meaningless fringe groups "conservative" means "fascist" and "liberal" means "anarchist."

I wouldn't call the far right meaningless. Can't make it through a Republican primary without kowtowing to them. Look at McCain: he was about to be voted out of office until he learned to do nothing but trumpet the Fox News party line.

 

[hal2kilo]

I think you're spinning a bit to match your agenda, but I have no trouble agreeing the "left side of the Democratic party" is liberal. That's the first time I've seen you add that qualification, however. It's an important distinction because it underscores the fundamental ignorance of those who bleat about Democrats and/or Obama being extreme leftists. It's empty-headed partisan nonsense.

Perhaps more to the point, you have no more right to define "liberal" than those you're challenging. The RNC has redefined "liberal" to suit its propaganda. As you have demonstrated, this has been quite successful with a great many right-leaning Americans. Theirs is not the only definition, however, as Shadow9d9 and many others here have pointed out regularly. (And as far as the rest of the world is concerned, America has two conservative parties, but we'll set that aside.) That's really the underlying issue, that "liberal" does not mean the same thing to everyone, making the word rather useless in most discussions. The same applies to "conservative", though perhaps to a lesser extent. There are people on the right fringe of the GOP who consider the mainstream Republican party to be too liberal, and Republican icons like Ronald Reagan would be considered liberal by many Republicans today.

Exactly! :thumbsup:

 

[Atreus21]

I think you're spinning a bit to match your agenda, but I have no trouble agreeing the "left side of the Democratic party" is liberal. That's the first time I've seen you add that qualification, however. It's an important distinction because it underscores the fundamental ignorance of those who bleat about Democrats and/or Obama being extreme leftists. It's empty-headed partisan nonsense.

Perhaps more to the point, you have no more right to define "liberal" than those you're challenging. The RNC has redefined "liberal" to suit its propaganda. As you have demonstrated, this has been quite successful with a great many right-leaning Americans. Theirs is not the only definition, however, as Shadow9d9 and many others here have pointed out regularly. (And as far as the rest of the world is concerned, America has two conservative parties, but we'll set that aside.) That's really the underlying issue, that "liberal" does not mean the same thing to everyone, making the word rather useless in most discussions. The same applies to "conservative", though perhaps to a lesser extent. There are people on the right fringe of the GOP who consider the mainstream Republican party to be too liberal, and Republican icons like Ronald Reagan would be considered liberal by many Republicans today.

There is no way any republican would consider Ronald Reagan liberal today. If Reagan were to run again on the same platform he did in the 80's, the left would crucify him as, well, the second coming of Ronald Reagan and his destructive conservatism.

 

[Jaskalas]

We also don't have hard numbers yet. If 96 Conservative groups were targeted and only 20 liberal groups, that's still pretty clear bias.

Actually... you cannot use that logic. It ignores obvious potential differences between X and Y.

Do you know how many minorities are in jail, is that a pretty clear bias as well?

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

They were flagged, not targeted. Huge difference.

 

[Bowfinger]

There is no way any republican would consider Ronald Reagan liberal today. If Reagan were to run again on the same platform he did in the 80's, the left would crucify him as, well, the second coming of Ronald Reagan and his destructive conservatism.

Really? You might want to explain that to traditional Republicans like Bob Dole. He seems to disagree, though perhaps he just missed the last couple of rounds of Kool-Aid:

Bob Dole: GOP should be 'closed for repairs'

The Republican Party has changed so drastically in recent years, the current GOP wouldn’t welcome the likes of Ronald Reagan, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said Sunday.
[...]
Asked whether he would be welcomed by the Republican Party today, Dole said, “I doubt it. Reagan wouldn’t have made it, certainly Nixon wouldn’t have made it, because he had ideas. We might have made it, but I doubt it.” ...

You may not hear this on Fox, but even many solid Republicans think their party has drifted away from them towards the right-wing fringe.

 

[irishScott]

I think you're spinning a bit to match your agenda, but I have no trouble agreeing the "left side of the Democratic party" is liberal. That's the first time I've seen you add that qualification, however. It's an important distinction because it underscores the fundamental ignorance of those who bleat about Democrats and/or Obama being extreme leftists. It's empty-headed partisan nonsense.

Perhaps more to the point, you have no more right to define "liberal" than those you're challenging. The RNC has redefined "liberal" to suit its propaganda. As you have demonstrated, this has been quite successful with a great many right-leaning Americans. Theirs is not the only definition, however, as Shadow9d9 and many others here have pointed out regularly. (And as far as the rest of the world is concerned, America has two conservative parties, but we'll set that aside.) That's really the underlying issue, that "liberal" does not mean the same thing to everyone, making the word rather useless in most discussions. The same applies to "conservative", though perhaps to a lesser extent. There are people on the right fringe of the GOP who consider the mainstream Republican party to be too liberal, and Republican icons like Ronald Reagan would be considered liberal by many Republicans today.

Except Shadow talks about virtually nothing else. Anytime someone uses the term liberal he jumps in and is all "ZOMG DAT PERSON ISN'T A LIBERUL!!! REAL LIBERULS IS IN EUROPE!" I was chastising him for it.

The irony is I'm not defining anything, I'm not arguing anything. I'm affirming professionally recognized definitions and chastising Shadow for his dumb posts.

Apparently that gets a lot of P&Ners panties in a twist. I also never called Obama a liberal by the way. Stop making up up arguments, I have better things to do then serve as someone's imagined validation.

 

[irishScott]

I wouldn't call the far right meaningless. Can't make it through a Republican primary without kowtowing to them. Look at McCain: he was about to be voted out of office until he learned to do nothing but trumpet the Fox News party line.

Fox News and Nazi doctrine are two very different things.

 

[irishScott]

Actually... you cannot use that logic. It ignores obvious potential differences between X and Y.

Do you know how many minorities are in jail, is that a pretty clear bias as well?

Given the context of political groups, I'm assuming the difference is roughly the nil.

 

[Atreus21]

Really? You might want to explain that to traditional Republicans like Bob Dole. He seems to disagree, though perhaps he just missed the last couple of rounds of Kool-Aid:

You may not hear this on Fox, but even many solid Republicans think their party has drifted away from them towards the right-wing fringe.

I'll post Jonah Goldberg's response:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/349741/bob-doles-parlor-game-jonah-goldberg

‘Could people like Bob Dole, even Ronald Reagan — could you make it in today’s Republican party?” Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday asked former Senate majority leader and 1996 GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole.

“I doubt it,” Dole replied. “Reagan wouldn’t have made it. Certainly, Nixon couldn’t have made it, because he had ideas and — we might have made it, but I doubt it.”

Let me state up front that I have incredible respect and admiration for Dole. He’s an American hero and was a politician of undisputed integrity. I also admire Chris Wallace as an insightful and accomplished journalist.

But it is a silly question and an absolutely ridiculous answer.

I don’t blame Wallace for asking it, I guess, because every time a major Republican says Reagan couldn’t get nominated today, it gets enormous play. When Jeb Bush said something to that effect last summer, it ignited a minor firestorm.

This time around, the sirens went off at the New York Times the moment Dole uttered his remarks. Members of the Times editorial board sprang from their beds like firefighters, putting on their boots midstride as they raced for the newsroom to bang out an editorial titled “The Wisdom of Bob Dole.”

It was arguably their most predictable editorial ever — or at least since the Times’ endorsement(s) of Barack Obama, or their endorsements of John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton (twice), Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter (twice), George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, and John F. Kennedy. Clearly, when the Times frets that the Republican party is dangerously “abandoning its past,” you know it has the best interests of the GOP at heart.

Never mind that the Times didn’t have much use for Dole and viewed Reagan’s takeover of the White House as tantamount to a barbarian invasion.

So why is it a ridiculous question? Well, first of all, it’s not a literal question but a figurative one. After all, if Reagan were alive today, he would be 102 years old.

Obviously, what Wallace meant is: “Would a politician with his positions make it in today’s GOP?”

But this, too, has more poetic license than people realize. After all, a candidate who kept insisting that we should roll back the Soviet Union wouldn’t be greeted as a man of unbending principle, but as a loon. The Soviet Union is gone. The world has moved on. The issues have changed.

Even being generous on this point, the simple fact is that no former president of the United States would have an easy time getting elected today. Nixon wouldn’t fare well today not because he had “ideas,” as Dole ludicrously said, but because Nixon was a screaming liberal by today’s standards. And I don’t simply mean today’s Republican standards. Nixon started the EPA. He implemented wage and price controls. He didn’t just push affirmative-action programs but racial quotas too.

As for the Democrats, which one, exactly, would have an easy time getting elected today? Forget about the repugnant sexual antics; John F. Kennedy was a foreign-policy hawk and tax-cutter. Jimmy Carter? A haughty, born-again Christian Southerner? Sure, he’d sail through the Democratic primaries. Even Bill Clinton, despite his enormous popularity among Democrats today, probably couldn’t get nominated if he ran as the Democrat he was in 1992.

No one knows how Nixon, Carter, Clinton, or Reagan — never mind FDR, Lincoln, or Washington — would change their views with the benefit of hindsight. It’s a fun parlor game to guess. But that’s all it is: a game.

Meanwhile, Republicans are subjected to a double standard. On one hand, they are vilified for being too inflexible, too hidebound. On the other hand, they’re condemned for not holding the exact same positions other Republicans held 30 or even 60 years ago. (Obama loves to invoke Eisenhower’s positions as if they prove GOP hypocrisy.) Which is it? Are they rigid, or changing too much?

Obama doesn’t even hold the same positions he held five years ago. But his ever-changing views are proof of “pragmatism” and “evolution.”

Maybe Republicans learned some lessons from the past? Reagan agreed to amnesty before enforcement on immigration and it proved a failure. He agreed to match tax hikes for spending cuts, and Democrats reneged on the cuts while pocketing the hikes. Today’s GOP, right or wrong, changed its positions based on changed circumstances. My hunch — and it’s just a hunch — is that Reagan would be pretty sympathetic to the Republican evolution.