Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama Attacks 'Phony Scandals,' 'One Percent,' Forces 'Conspired' Against Middle Class

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatriotGames2
Do people really believe this crap?

The last approval rating I saw for Obama was 41% across the board.
His approval rating among black is, at this time 86%
So yes .. 41% of voters in general, and 86% of black voters ... believe his crap.
Pretty dang sad ....




posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The way I read it, they were in a different list that was separate from the whole.
It even had a name, the 'Emerging Issues list.
Then there's that part of the story where the emerging issues were held up for 27 months while progressive groups were put through the system.


Semantics at some point...but...One "master" Bolo list...with seperate "categories"...technically on the same list, but in different categories...so when the Dems claim it was the same list...correct...and when the GOP claim it was a different list...kinda correct too.



Despite the recent revelations, the BOLO could still be problematic for the IRS. The list’s “emerging issues” category included only conservative terms at the outset, raising questions about why the IRS prioritized conservative groups but none from the left.

The term “progressive” appeared in a separate part of the BOLO, under the “touch and go historical” criteria.

Questions remain about when and how the progressive terms were used, as well as whether BOLO categories other than “emerging issues” were even relevant to the audit. The IRS and George’s office said this week that they’re still looking into those matters.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Again if your purpose is to point out they were treated differently...yes they were...correct and agree.

If we are discussing honesty/dishonesty...the technical truth is that they were both on the same BOLO list...albiet different categories of the same list...and I was unaware of that until you cited it for me and thanks for that...BUT I was not being dishonest when I claimed they were on the same list..it was reported that way and technically accurate, but the ommission of the TP specifically being in a seperate "category" on that master BOLO list is failure or bias amongst reporters.

What we needs is a complet listing of keywords in the BOLO and it's categories, until then it is ripe for the picking of selective, partisan claims.

I remain of the strong mindset that this was not politically motivated.

If your job at the IRS was to find orgs looking to avoid paying taxes...and imagine for a moment that you were 100% non-political...could cae less...wouldn't groups whose platform is to abolish the IRS or have the name (T)axed (E)nough (A)lready be somewhere on your radar for scrutiny?

That said the practice invites just the type of ass-kicking the IRS is getting and they were stupid to employ the strategy....but I am not seeing any political motivation apart from the way Issa and others are looking to exploit the issue.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 




Again if your purpose is to point out they were treated differently...yes they were...correct and agree.

That was the main purpose of my post.




I was not being dishonest when I claimed they were on the same list..it was reported that way and technically accurate

Please know that I was not blaming you for such.


I remain of the strong mindset that this was not politically motivated.

I am not so sure of this.
What differentiated the two groups, other than their political leanings, for the IRS to treat them differently?
If you can't come up with something other than politics, it remains that this was politically motivated.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


292 Conservative groups were targeted and 6 Progressive groups. That's a 50-1 discrepancy from being "equal".



Out of how many applicants?

For every 9 White people whose registration to vote is approved, only 1 African American's application is approved!

All we need to do is disreagrd that African Americans make up only 12% of the population.

Idealogical fever...you are fighting a culture war while the republic suffers.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy



I remain of the strong mindset that this was not politically motivated.

I am not so sure of this.
What differentiated the two groups, other than their political leanings, for the IRS to treat them differently?
If you can't come up with something other than politics, it remains that this was politically motivated.


One of them had an Anti-Tax platform? (T)axed (E)nough (A)lready?

and Just an FYI..


“We haven’t proved political motivation,” said Representative Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana Republican who, as the chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, is leading one inquiry.

Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, said that in retrospect, suggestions that Mr. Obama had orchestrated an I.R.S. attack on his political enemies were unwarranted.

“Presidents have always been very careful about maintaining the appearance of keeping hands off the I.R.S.,” he said. “I don’t have any reason to believe there wasn’t targeting of conservatives, but it might well have been a lot more than that as well.”

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 



One of them had an Anti-Tax platform?

I get it that the IRS might have a reason to oppose such a thing....

BUT,

You do realize that the IRS singling Tea Party out because of their platform is completely political, right? As the correct appellation is 'Political Platform'.


Noun 1. political platform - a document stating the aims and principles of a political partypolitical platform - a document stating the aims and principles of a political party


Maybe you mean that there is no proof that President Obama was involved in this singling out of groups for purely political reasons?



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


292 Conservative groups were targeted and 6 Progressive groups. That's a 50-1 discrepancy from being "equal".



Out of how many applicants?

For every 9 White people whose registration to vote is approved, only 1 African American's application is approved!

All we need to do is disreagrd that African Americans make up only 12% of the population.

Idealogical fever...you are fighting a culture war while the republic suffers.


Let's try percentages again:

"In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were processed as potential political cases," George wrote to Rep. Sandy Levin, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee. "In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit."

The numbers are the same as when I posted them before, but the first time I posted them, you wouldn't accept my source (cns) and said that the story was old. This time it is from CBS and the story is much more recent.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by Indigo5
 



One of them had an Anti-Tax platform?

I get it that the IRS might have a reason to oppose such a thing....

BUT,

You do realize that the IRS singling Tea Party out because of their platform is completely political, right? As the correct appellation is 'Political Platform'.


Oh...Don't think for a moment I don't agree the IRS was out of bounds and frankly stupid.

And yes...they singled out the TEA Party for a component of thier political platform.

But it is a leap to go from there to the Left/Right thing...

Even a fierce conservative working the IRS with the responsibility to find those Orgs. likely to be evading taxes would look twice at organizations with (T)axed (E)nough (A)lready in thier names.

Is it right? No Is it stupid? Yes. The IRS deserves the hammering and hopefully things will change.

But I would strongly contend that they did not target "Conservative" groups, but rather groups likely to "Avoid Taxes" and those two things happened to overlap significantly.

In that context, I don't see the IRS eff-up as politically motivated.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 




But it is a leap to go from there to the Left/Right thing...

It is the only thing differentiating the two groups from one another.

You think it was purely coincidental that they separated the right-wing from the left? Luck of the draw?

You see, there were groups that were interested in voting out incumbents, giving Congress their 'pink slips'. Why would that trouble the IRS? They aren't elected.
edit on 26-7-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


292 Conservative groups were targeted and 6 Progressive groups. That's a 50-1 discrepancy from being "equal".



Out of how many applicants?

For every 9 White people whose registration to vote is approved, only 1 African American's application is approved!

All we need to do is disreagrd that African Americans make up only 12% of the population.

Idealogical fever...you are fighting a culture war while the republic suffers.


Let's try percentages again:

"In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were processed as potential political cases," George wrote to Rep. Sandy Levin, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee. "In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit."

The numbers are the same as when I posted them before, but the first time I posted them, you wouldn't accept my source (cns) and said that the story was old. This time it is from CBS and the story is much more recent.


(A) Your numbers are correct
(B) Since those numbers, the Inspector General has admitted that he missed some things, retracted his prior statements and will be comming out with further information.....I can dig up the source again if need be, but I read and posted the link earlier.

So with what we have so far your numbers are correct...with the caveat...it's ongoing investigation now.

That said...even with the numbers we have...the post I responded to claimed 50 to 1...vs. 30% with the single word "Progressive" to 100% for WORDS...PLURAL... "Tea Party", "Patriot", "9/12" etc.

Are you backing the 50 to 1 claim I responded to?

Are you wondering why the 30% number only represents "Progressive" for a search? Can we see the stats for all left leaning orgs for a fair comparison?
edit on 26-7-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

You think it was purely coincidental that they separated the right-wing from the left? Luck of the draw?


No...I think the IRS targeted specific groups whose paltform ranged from antogonist toward the IRS and Taxes, to outright calling for the abolishment of the IRS as an illegal organization.

If OWS had the same platform, they would have been equally targeted as an org. that was potentially avoiding taxes.

But Liberal/Conservative as a general principle or political perspective wasn't a factor.

Don't know how to say it any other way.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Appreciate the civil discussion BTW and you moved me along with data-points I was unaware of and thank you for that too. That said I think our debate has moved into the arena of oppinions that can't be proved one way or another...at least not with the facts we have thus far. I have a busy day here at the office...take care.
edit on 26-7-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Are you wondering why the 30% number only represents "Progressive" for a search? Can we see the stats for all left leaning orgs for a fair comparison?

This covers the ones that were singled out.
The stories that I have read so far state that the left leaning groups that were 'singled out' were picked because the word 'progressive' was in their names. The criteria for the 'righties' was if they used 'Tea Party', 'Patriots' or '9/12' in their names.
Again, more unfairness, in that they only singled out the lefties using one word, while they used more to single out righties.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawg61
Economic solution?Why isn't this guy being impeached?Bengazi,NSA abuses,IRS abuses and helping to incite race riot(travon)?
Um... cause those are the phony scandals he is talking about.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy

You think it was purely coincidental that they separated the right-wing from the left? Luck of the draw?


No...I think the IRS targeted specific groups whose paltform ranged from antogonist toward the IRS and Taxes, to outright calling for the abolishment of the IRS as an illegal organization.

If OWS had the same platform, they would have been equally targeted as an org. that was potentially avoiding taxes.

But Liberal/Conservative as a general principle or political perspective wasn't a factor.

Don't know how to say it any other way.


Your crystal ball for the excuses given is mind boggling.

I did not know that Freedom of Speech is as such, that the Govt gets to deny and/or abuse the process for groups that don't agree with said Govt.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you would be squealing from the mountain tops.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Your crystal ball for the excuses given is mind boggling.


Hey Mac...nothing personal...but don't like your style and won't be engaging..lots of bait, few links.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Are you wondering why the 30% number only represents "Progressive" for a search? Can we see the stats for all left leaning orgs for a fair comparison?

This covers the ones that were singled out.
The stories that I have read so far state that the left leaning groups that were 'singled out' were picked because the word 'progressive' was in their names. The criteria for the 'righties' was if they used 'Tea Party', 'Patriots' or '9/12' in their names.
Again, more unfairness, in that they only singled out the lefties using one word, while they used more to single out righties.


Quick one here...."Occupy" was also on the BOLO list...yet for as per the IG testimony when he cited the 30% vs. 100%...he just used "Progressive" vs. several keywords for conservative groups. Before we start comparing 30% to 100%...we should start with full data. Just my strong opinion.

Just saying...we don't have the full story..in part because this entire inquiry up to this point has been directed at the "Conservative scrutiny" vs. total.
edit on 26-7-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 




Documents released by Cummings on Friday included a May 3, 2013, email between George and his deputy for investigations. In those documents, the deputy concluded after a search of 5,500 IRS emails that there was no sign of political motives in Tea Party searches.

news.yahoo.com...

Again...conflating political motivation with targeting groups likely to avoid taxes.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

Your crystal ball for the excuses given is mind boggling.


Hey Mac...nothing personal...but don't like your style and won't be engaging..lots of bait, few links.



So, selective in who you engage, when confronted.

Sounds like every other Progressive I come across. No skin off my back, but don't think that means I won't challenge your BS at every step.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 




Again...conflating political motivation with targeting groups likely to avoid taxes.

Likely to avoid taxes, or likely to vote representatives into office that would cut taxes?
There is a difference.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join