WRONG! It's because Hillary's white and Carson is black. Cannot bad-mouth anything a black person says else you're declared racist scum. Is that what you are?
Can anyone even imagine the right wing freakout if Hillary said something like "I'm going to use the federal department of education to investigate colleges for political bias"? I think the internet would run out of Hitler pictures.
Since Carson is on their political sports team I imagine there will be barely a peep.
Do me a favor: can you describe a set of circumstances that could have happened where you would have come to the conclusion that there was no such political targeting by the IRS?
I bet you can't.
When the IRS is using terms like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" as criteria to single out organizations for special review that takes years, no I can't think of a logical explanation.
But it doesn't matter now does it? When a Republican gets in office, they now have a precedent to do the same. It's not illegal now is is it, it's just "mismanagement", right? So don't fucking bitch when the next round the criteria is 'abortion' or 'liberal' or 'progessive'. After all, it's just a policy, its mismanagement, right? It's definitely not illegal, Obama's DOJ said so.
What's wrong Eskimospy, did you really think this watery pile of bullshit didn't stink? What, you going to point at it now and think it didn't come from Democrats?
And really, you have no grounds whatsoever to point at me as if I'm right-wing. I have posted plenty of criticism at Republicans, from having the FBI confiscate Library records to warrant less cell phone monitoring under dubious extensions of the Patriot Act, which primarily started under Bush.
You on the other hand apparently see no wrong on the Democrats and do not understand the concepts of precedent and "the slippery slope". Your opinion never wavers, they can do no wrong as long as they are screwing over the other side, right?
This is nothing more than one more nail in the coffin of freedom in the US, courtesy of both Dems and Repubs and their mindless followers.
You appear to have some seriously wrong information. I would strongly suggest you go and read the DOJ report. You're just ranting about conspiracies that seem to have no basis in reality.
The link you cited just contradicted your basic apparent assertion about the IRS's motives.Have you posted a single reference stating any of this is untrue?
The link you cited just contradicted your basic apparent assertion about the IRS's motives.
By not just targeting words associated with conservative groups, but also liberal groups such as members of the the "occupy" movement, "progressive" and "occupied territory advocacy" the IRS was clearly doing a lousy job if their sole goal was to favor democrats and liberals. (It should be noted that in some instances groups with Israel in their name are in fact on the liberal side of the spectrum and may be often critical of the Israeli government's current behavior.)
The big picture is the IRS's behavior does fit with an overwhelmed organization trying to keep somewhat a handle on charities violating the rules on political activities but ultimately clumsily looking for certain key words which indicate the organization is likely politically oriented and possibly deserves more scrutiny. (With clearly more issues in how this ended up being implemented in practice in various cases.)
When investigators uncovered evidence that the IRS also flagged applications that used words such as progressive, some commentators (and Democratic congressmen) rushed to conclude that the scandal was not politically motivated. But a closer look quickly revealed that liberal-leaning groups did not experience the same targeted treatment, the same level of questioning, or the same delays as their conservative-leaning counterparts.
A House Ways and Means Committee staff analysis found that while more than 100 conservative groups were targeted, only seven groups with progressive in their names were. The conservative groups were asked, on average, three times as many questions as the Progressive groups, and while many conservative groups endured years-long delays, all the Progressive groups were approved. Investigators also discovered that the applications of liberal-leaning groups were never sent to the DC office that handled the tea party and conservative applications.
That's frankly somewhat of a surprise and spells out the danger of assuming every group associated with a word has a certain orientation as you have actually done. (If there are multiple groups with that as part of their name its still likely others are actually liberal.)Occupied Territory Advocacy is a pro-israel group.
I obviously have done such research (this does not require researching in detail every single group on the IRS approval list), you are obviously doing SHODDY research and making misleading claims at best given the evidence you are linking to. (I don't need to specifically cite more references than have already been done so far, especially when your own references don't support what you are claiming.O)Do some basic research before you post then come back. With references. You guys keep getting asked for references and you have none.
Again this is ultimately an unconvincing long repeated Republican talking point. All this really shows is more groups with conservative in their names applied for IRS approval during the period in question while liberal groups had more variance in their names. Much of the rest of issue was addressed in the DOJ report which it appears you have not read and certainly have not responded to.
While its not clear if your claims only apply to a really limited number at the top, it should be noted that the civil service laws actually specifically bar Obama from simply doing that on his own once you get past a select number of appointees. There are also all sorts of problems if you care about proper government administration in firing everyone at the top of IRS given many simply didn't have anything to do with running the parts of the IRS responsible for running the charities.All Obama would have had to do would be to come out and say "I didn't know, and these people running the IRS are now fired".
I obviously have done such research ..
To be clear since you are continuing to IGNORE the evidence you have linked to. To be clear on this additional point for example, "medical marijuana" advocacy is more often than not going to be associated with liberal groups.
While there will be exceptions that are libertarian, they are going to be of less concern to a group actually trying to ensure Democrats win since hard core libertarians are more likely to support a third party Libertarian candidate than the republican in many situations. (Especially those that care about the issue of marijuana.)
I suppose you are making a significant concession by effectively acknowledging unlike the claims of many Republicans Obama is not actually all that left wing.You may not have noticed, but the groups targeted were splinter groups off of primarily Republican but also Democrat bases. Or are you trying to tell us that the GOP establishment likes the Tea Party, or that the Democrat establishment likes hard left wing groups?
I'll let you try to figure out the meaning of that.
I suppose you are making a significant concession by effectively acknowledging unlike the claims of many Republicans Obama is not actually all that left wing.
There is an obvious contradiction in your current argument though because you would expect that if the IRS acting as a proxy of Obama was really concerned about left wing splinter groups they would find many right wing splinter groups to be a good thing since they should cause some of the problems for regular Republicans that sufficiently left wing groups would for mainstream democrats. (There certainly have been national campaigns in the past where third party Libertarian candidates have served as effective spoilers in a particular race, it just has not actually happened on the Presidential level although the candidacy of Ross Perot clearly effectively served to attract a greater number of conservatively oriented voters.)
Edit: In reality Obama never actually cracked down on medical marijuana all that much overall, and certainly was in a strong position even by the 2012 election he was in position to argue he realistically was a way better option than a Republican Presidential candidate and what they would be likely to do.
WRONG! It's because Hillary's white and Carson is black. Cannot bad-mouth anything a black person says else you're declared racist scum. Is that what you are?
Ooohhh, gave yourself a couple of little tingles there didn't you.
Can we also go after churches for promoting conservative political agendas? You promote a candidate or political agenda and you lose your tax exempt status! :sneaky:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-would-use-department-of-education-to-monitor
Small government GOP for you.
It's been bugging me for a couple of days, so I fixed "sensor" to the correct spelling. I should change the OP's name to censeamp while I'm at it. -DrPizza
"for extreme political bias"
There is a big difference between teaching politics and biased political indoctrination or more aptly put brain washing.
tons of non education "studies" on going which is largely a make work program for liberal academics that have no skill set to get a job outside of the classroom. They are largely the liberal academic grievance mongers that are poisoning the minds of college kids with their hate and envy. Cull academia of the academic grievance mongers.
I'm far more concerned about this nutcases most recent abortion statements.
He is a complete lunatic. I would rather see Trump in office.
Wow, I can't believe I just said that.
I'm far more concerned about this nutcases most recent abortion statements.
He is a complete lunatic. I would rather see Trump in office.
Wow, I can't believe I just said that.
Carson is not sincerely running. It's a high profile book tour.
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/ben-carson-suspends-campaign-for-2-weeks/