Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 248
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/20...s-scandal?lite


    "The ranking Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee ranking member, Sander Levin, D-Mich., released new information Tuesday from the Internal Revenue Service to provide further evidence that progressive groups were singled out for scrutiny as were conservative groups.

    The documents include an IRS training presentation that instructs IRS employees to screen tax-exemption applications for Democratic leaning "Emerge" organizations alongside "progressive" and "tea party" organizations.

    Three organizations tied to the national Emerge America organization -- Emerge Nevada, Emerge Maine and Emerge Massachusetts -- sought tax-exempt status in 2011. They were denied -- the group, which helps recruit and train Democratic women for electoral politics, was deemed too political.

    And so, when it came time for the IRS to scrutinize organizations, it instructed IRS employees to screen for "Emerge" along with "progressive." If the tax agency were singling out conservatives, as Republicans and a few too many reporters claimed, this obviously wouldn't have happened.

    Making matters slightly more amusing, the same new materials show the IRS had a "Be On the Look Out" warning that called for heightened scrutiny to "ACORN successor" organizations.

    Levin said in a statement, "Once again it is clear that the Inspector General's report left out critical information that skewed the audit's findings and set the stage for Republicans to make completely baseless accusations in an effort to tarnish the White House. These new documents make it clear the IRS scrutiny of the political activity of 501(c)(4) organizations covered a broad spectrum of political ideology and was not politically motivated. Republicans should stop trying to twist the facts to fit a faulty 'enemies list' narrative and instead join in the effort to fix the mismanagement problems at the IRS tax-exempt division as I have called for since day one.""
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  3. #2
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    I think you don't quite understand the actual scandal. The scandal is not that the IRS was allowing Progressive groups that shouldn't get tax free status through, it was that it wasn't delaying legitimate Progressive political groups. Yet it was delaying conservative groups that eventually were given their proper status.

    This article changes none of that. What they are attempting to do is show one training document (out of more than 5000 turned over to the House and 10,00 request, but not released) and use two examples of rejections. Not only is that, at most, smokescreen, it isn't even a particularly effective smokescreen.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think you don't quite understand the actual scandal. The scandal is not that the IRS was allowing Progressive groups that shouldn't get tax free status through, it was that it wasn't delaying legitimate Progressive political groups. Yet it was delaying conservative groups that eventually were given their proper status.
    Being delayed is the entire point - it is should not be used for the purposes of supporting a political candidate:
    Section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated.[33][34] An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status because its engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status.[35]
    (source)

    So it shouldn't be a surprise then that mentions of Tea Party should invite inspection! It's practically screaming political activity.

    I also notice your phrasing that 'legitimate Progressive political groups' aren't delayed which of course is the entire point of the IRS investigations in the first place! Why would something legitimate be delayed at all? Surely those groups that seem fine and aren't raising red-flags should not be delayed - on what grounds would something legitimate be scrutinized further?

    On the other hand, only some conservative groups were delayed and only those who raised red flags; there's no evidence that all conservative groups are being scrutinized. You're not comparing like for like. Do you have evidence that clearly legitimate conservative groups were delayed? Ones that didn't raise red flags? And do you have evidence that no progressive group was delayed or denied?

    In summary, complaining about the IRS doing their job is hardly a scandal; a few overzealous employees is no scandal either. You seem to be complaining that groups which are being raised red flags are being delayed whereas the ones not raising red flags aren't. You seem to be expecting that 'legitimate' groups should undergo the same scrutiny as potentially illegitimate ones; why?

  5. #4
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    So it shouldn't be a surprise then that mentions of Tea Party should invite inspection! It's practically screaming political activity.
    So you are saying that the multi-million dollar IRS enforcement division couldn't read beyond the title of the group before becoming concerned? They couldn't, say, review the entire packet? And that these wonderful civil servants were somehow unaware of the event in American history from which this group got its name? That the entire IRS has fallen for an equivocation fallacy? That is your defense?

    Moreover, the Tea Party wasn't the only group targetted. The guidance given to IRS agents was to delay groups using the words: "patriot," "9/12," and "We the People." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/us...nted=2&_r=1&hp

    Yet magically, names like "policy project" and "online policy group," "center for responsive politics" don't sound like political groups?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I also notice your phrasing that 'legitimate Progressive political groups' aren't delayed which of course is the entire point of the IRS investigations in the first place! Why would something legitimate be delayed at all?
    That is exactly the point. Conservative groups that got investigated ended up getting approved because they were legitimate. Progressive groups that got investigated were rejected. Comparing the two is apples and oranges.

    It should also be noted that the groups you mention were denied based upon their applications, they weren't asked spurious questions about the content of their prayers and their donor lists (which were then leaked).

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Do you have evidence that clearly legitimate conservative groups were delayed?
    Please see the NYT article, or the IRS apology.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

    IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

    Look, everyone seems to agree that this has happened except you.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    In summary, complaining about the IRS doing their job is hardly a scandal; a few overzealous employees is no scandal either.
    You need to follow the news more, this is hardly just a few "overzealous" employees.

    According to Lerner’s account, “line people” in Cincinnati decided on their own to target Tea Party groups and to send them inappropriate and intrusive questions. When senior IRS officials found out, they imposed rationality on the process and stopped the abuses.

    This week, on July 18, the IRS’s own employees demonstrated that this story was utterly, completely false.

    For the first time, congressional investigators heard not just from one of those very “line people” blamed for the scandal but also from a senior IRS attorney in Washington who was directly involved in the process at the very highest levels.

    And, for the first time, congressional investigators heard candor and truth.

    Did the IRS scandal originate with “line people”? No. In fact, Elizabeth Hofacre, the Ohio agent charged with processing Tea Party applications, was so frustrated with IRS actions that she asked for – and received – a transfer from her original position to escape from IRS dictates that came from Washington, D.C.

    Even worse, we now know – thanks to Carter Hull – a retired Washington tax specialist who was responsible for providing guidance on reviewing tax-exempt applications for Tea Party groups – that the scandal goes all the way to the IRS chief counsel’s office. In fact, it was the chief counsel’s office – not the “line people” that redoubled efforts to scrutinize conservatives. Here’s a key portion of Mr. Hull’s testimony:

    "In August 2011 I attended a meeting at which the applications assigned to me were discussed. I recall that Don Spellman, David Marshall, and Amy Franklin from Chief Counsel’s office were at the meeting... I recall that Ms. Franklin or someone else from Chief Counsel’s office stated that more current information was needed for my applications and that a second development letter should be sent to the applicants. I also recall the discussion about the creation of a template development letter for Tea Party applications."

    This is extraordinary, suggesting that it was the IRS chief counsel’s office, not rogue agents in Ohio, who engineered the key abuses in the targeting scandal, including the extraordinarily-intrusive questionnaires that asked conservative groups for donor lists, Internet login information, social media pages, and even the political and charitable activities of family members.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So you are saying that the multi-million dollar IRS enforcement division couldn't read beyond the title of the group before becoming concerned? They couldn't, say, review the entire packet? And that these wonderful civil servants were somehow unaware of the event in American history from which this group got its name? That the entire IRS has fallen for an equivocation fallacy? That is your defense?
    Who said that only title was used in their filters? I would imagine the entire document is computerized and word-searched. And it is likely that they weren't so much driven by history but recent events where actual political movements called "Tea Party" or "Tea Partiers" or "Tea Baggers" (lol, that never ceases to be funny) came into being.

    Are you somehow saying that a 2008+ usage of the word Tea Party doesn't have political connotations?




    Yet magically, names like "policy project" and "online policy group," "center for responsive politics" don't sound like political groups?
    Do you have evidence that they are not in the watch-list? Progressives got 'emerge' and 'acorn'.



    That is exactly the point. Conservative groups that got investigated ended up getting approved because they were legitimate. Progressive groups that got investigated were rejected. Comparing the two is apples and oranges.
    Yes! But they weren't known to be legitimate - that's why they were investigated! That's the entire point of the system to raise red-flags and investigate them! There would also progressive groups that were also delayed and also found to be legitimate!

    It should also be noted that the groups you mention were denied based upon their applications, they weren't asked spurious questions about the content of their prayers and their donor lists (which were then leaked).
    I would think that donor lists are legitimate. On prayers, can you prove that no progressive group were asked about their prayers? It doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary to investigate claims on a religious basis.


    Please see the NYT article, or the IRS apology.
    Look, everyone seems to agree that this has happened except you.
    No, I think I used the term overzealous in the next statement. Regardless, that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing that you are conflating clearly legitimate liberal groups and conservative groups who raised red-flags to show political bias. Without showing that

    a) clearly legitimate conservative groups are also pass on quickly.
    b) flagged progressive groups are passed on quickly.
    c) legitimate conservative were eventually denied
    d) illegitimate liberal groups were accepted.

    You are just taking two out of the possible six scenarios that are entirely normal and claiming bias against the ones that seem most convenient to you. The same could be done for the liberal side too. This is your conflation of the situation. Please support it.

  7. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Do you have evidence that they are not in the watch-list? Progressives got 'emerge' and 'acorn'.
    'Occupy' also
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #7
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Who said that only title was used in their filters? I would imagine the entire document is computerized and word-searched. And it is likely that they weren't so much driven by history but recent events where actual political movements called "Tea Party" or "Tea Partiers" or "Tea Baggers" (lol, that never ceases to be funny) came into being.
    That is one heck of a response that seems to agree with my point. So they hit ctrl+F and that was the depth of their search? They didn't read the whole narrative? They just saw a word they didn't like and wham, obstruction? Thats the great defense offered for their actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Are you somehow saying that a 2008+ usage of the word Tea Party doesn't have political connotations?
    Are you saying that the 2008+ usage of the word "social justice" doesn't?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Do you have evidence that they are not in the watch-list? Progressives got 'emerge' and 'acorn'.
    Two groups that had already violated federal law and as such were under suspicion for that reason, not for political screening.

    I submitted the evidence in my last post. No such words appear in any document revealed by the IRS to date.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Yes! But they weren't known to be legitimate - that's why they were investigated!
    So why then would Conservative groups be heavily investigated at such a higher rate than progressive groups? You seem to be struggling to ignore the obvious, the obvious that the IRS admitted btw.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I would think that donor lists are legitimate. On prayers, can you prove that no progressive group were asked about their prayers? It doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary to investigate claims on a religious basis.
    Please re-read the IRS apology. They admit asking for donor lists was inappropriate.

    The content of prayers is clearly far beyond the purview of whether or not a group spends a majority of its funding on political campaigns. Hence, why the IRS apologized for doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, I think I used the term overzealous in the next statement.
    No, you said: "a few overzealous employees is no scandal either."
    I showed that this was far beyond a few employees, extending all the way to the IRS commissioner's legal counsel.

    Your support request is inaccurate. None of those scenarios matter because you assume there is an acceptable list. There is none. That is the scandal, that there was a list and that that list was predominately Conservative in focus. None of that is under dispute. While it is true that some liberal groups were also investigated, the sheer, massive discrepancy in volume is the relevant point, especially since it was during an election cycle where Democrat lawmakers were pressuring the IRS to clamp down on Conservative 501c3s. Especially since this targeting seems to have originated at the very top of the IRS. Especially since the IRS has admitted to and apologized for targeting conservative groups.

    And that is the objection to this story. Sure you can point out two groups that were denied due to reason unrelated to the scandal and say "ah-ha" but that isn't a valid comparison, its simply cherry picking to apologize for a clearly corrupt activity.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is one heck of a response that seems to agree with my point. So they hit ctrl+F and that was the depth of their search? They didn't read the whole narrative? They just saw a word they didn't like and wham, obstruction? Thats the great defense offered for their actions.
    No, there's a list of key words that are searched for. I'd like to imagine it's a little more than ctrl-F. It's not a defense it's a description of how I'd imagine the system works; that it's more than just looking at the title.


    Are you saying that the 2008+ usage of the word "social justice" doesn't?
    Who knows. I don't have access to that his.

    Two groups that had already violated federal law and as such were under suspicion for that reason, not for political screening.

    I submitted the evidence in my last post. No such words appear in any document revealed by the IRS to date.

    So why then would Conservative groups be heavily investigated at such a higher rate than progressive groups? You seem to be struggling to ignore the obvious, the obvious that the IRS admitted btw.


    Please re-read the IRS apology. They admit asking for donor lists was inappropriate.

    The content of prayers is clearly far beyond the purview of whether or not a group spends a majority of its funding on political campaigns. Hence, why the IRS apologized for doing so.

    No, you said: "a few overzealous employees is no scandal either."
    I showed that this was far beyond a few employees, extending all the way to the IRS commissioner's legal counsel.
    Well, I don't intend to debate the facts. You are welcome to turn them into as much of a scandal as you wish as far as you wish.


    Your support request is inaccurate. None of those scenarios matter because you assume there is an acceptable list. There is none. That is the scandal, that there was a list and that that list was predominately Conservative in focus. None of that is under dispute. While it is true that some liberal groups were also investigated, the sheer, massive discrepancy in volume is the relevant point, especially since it was during an election cycle where Democrat lawmakers were pressuring the IRS to clamp down on Conservative 501c3s. Especially since this targeting seems to have originated at the very top of the IRS. Especially since the IRS has admitted to and apologized for targeting conservative groups.

    And that is the objection to this story. Sure you can point out two groups that were denied due to reason unrelated to the scandal and say "ah-ha" but that isn't a valid comparison, its simply cherry picking to apologize for a clearly corrupt activity.
    You have yet to show that the other four scenarios happened therefore no bias is proven. However you look at it, it is still invalid to compare how legitimate cases vs non-legitimate cases are handled. That is the basis of your statement and you need to support why this is a fair comparison.

    It's not an ah-ha moment nor a gotcha - it just doesn't make sense whether the system was biased or not. In fact what you describe seems to be exactly what would happen if it were fair. Please clarify what you mean by when you compare the two.

  10. #9
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    No, there's a list of key words that are searched for. I'd like to imagine it's a little more than ctrl-F. It's not a defense it's a description of how I'd imagine the system works; that it's more than just looking at the title.
    Ok, and regardless of the "sophistication" of the system, it is still superficial. It certainly shouldn't lead to two years of delays in approval. It could reasonably lead to an extra hour of reading through the packet, but do you really think that it is reasonable, at all, for the IRS to instigate a full scale investigation that takes months and months to complete solely because there is a word on a "no-no" list?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Who knows. I don't have access to that his.
    I think this is a bit disingenuous. You claimed that it should be patently evidence that the use of the words "tea party" indicates a likely political motivation. So why shouldn't words like "social justice" since those words are only used in reference to political systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, I don't intend to debate the facts. You are welcome to turn them into as much of a scandal as you wish as far as you wish.
    IE, you realize that I am right and that this was clearly an attempt to stifle political dissent.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You have yet to show that the other four scenarios happened therefore no bias is proven.
    The scenarios are not necessary to show that bias was in the system. The IRS's own admission is that there was bias in the system. The fact that Conservative groups were delayed much longer than Progressive groups and yet did not have higher disapproval rates is evidence of the bias.

    Everyone admits, including the President, that there was inappropriate bias in this process. The only question that remains is, was that bias illegal and how high did this policy go?


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    However you look at it, it is still invalid to compare how legitimate cases vs non-legitimate cases are handled. That is the basis of your statement and you need to support why this is a fair comparison.
    Which is why I'm not doing any such thing. That was your comparison, not mine. The examples you used were examples of cases in which the Progressive group was actually not entitled to the 501c3 status, so their delay is not an appropriate counter to the delays suffered by groups that were entitled to the 501c3 status.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    JJ: However you look at it, it is still invalid to compare how legitimate cases vs non-legitimate cases are handled. That is the basis of your statement and you need to support why this is a fair comparison.

    Which is why I'm not doing any such thing. That was your comparison, not mine. The examples you used were examples of cases in which the Progressive group was actually not entitled to the 501c3 status, so their delay is not an appropriate counter to the delays suffered by groups that were entitled to the 501c3 status.
    Your first post on the matter was "The scandal is not that the IRS was allowing Progressive groups that shouldn't get tax free status through, it was that it wasn't delaying legitimate Progressive political groups. "

    You are saying that the scandal is that legitimate progressive groups should also have been delayed. Yet:

    1. You haven't shown that legitimate Progressive political groups hadn't been delayed; i.e. you haven't shown that your statement is even true.
    2. Facts are that Progressive groups also go through the system as evidenced by those that had been rejected 501c3 status.
    3. You also haven't shown that legitimate right-wing groups hadn't gone through the system either, which would demonstrate that right-wing groups not on the BOLO, i.e. the same as those Progressive groups in your own statement, are not seeing additional biases either.

    These are your own words regarding what you believe the scandal is. Yet you bring up other points regarding that that are separate from the point that you raise. Even if it were true that there were extreme bias, this statement would still not make sense - it's the only reason why I jumped in. You chose to highlight an aspect of the process that seems fine - legitimate groups that pass initial muster, i.e. the BOLOs, shouldn't be delayed whether they're progressive or right-wing; and you haven't shown evidence of that either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, and regardless of the "sophistication" of the system, it is still superficial. It certainly shouldn't lead to two years of delays in approval. It could reasonably lead to an extra hour of reading through the packet, but do you really think that it is reasonable, at all, for the IRS to instigate a full scale investigation that takes months and months to complete solely because there is a word on a "no-no" list?

    I think this is a bit disingenuous. You claimed that it should be patently evidence that the use of the words "tea party" indicates a likely political motivation. So why shouldn't words like "social justice" since those words are only used in reference to political systems.

    IE, you realize that I am right and that this was clearly an attempt to stifle political dissent.



    The scenarios are not necessary to show that bias was in the system. The IRS's own admission is that there was bias in the system. The fact that Conservative groups were delayed much longer than Progressive groups and yet did not have higher disapproval rates is evidence of the bias.

    Everyone admits, including the President, that there was inappropriate bias in this process. The only question that remains is, was that bias illegal and how high did this policy go?
    Well, it's all very well saying this is the 'only question' now but you began with pointing out that legitimate Progressive groups should have to be delayed without demonstrating any of that. Your evidence for bias only points to the unfair treatment of the right-wing groups NOT preferential treatment of Progressive groups, which you claimed as being 'the only question'.

    Getting all worked up over something I am not denying, because it is irrelevant to the statement you made, is not forwarding the discussion; you're only emphasizing points I have not raised and for no gain, because I'm not going to challenge you on any of them.

    I only ask that you withdraw, reword or clarify the statement you began with.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; August 22nd, 2013 at 07:18 AM.

  12. #11
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Your first post on the matter was "The scandal is not that the IRS was allowing Progressive groups that shouldn't get tax free status through, it was that it wasn't delaying legitimate Progressive political groups. "

    You are saying that the scandal is that legitimate progressive groups should also have been delayed.
    If you are going to quote me, please do so in context.

    The scandal is not that the IRS was allowing Progressive groups that shouldn't get tax free status through, it was that it wasn't delaying legitimate Progressive political groups. Yet it was delaying conservative groups that eventually were given their proper status.

    My point was not that they weren't delaying Progressive groups, it was that Conservative groups were getting differential attention and delay.

    You are asking for me to do an analysis that was already done by Congress and the IRS, an analysis that led to the IRS apologizing for inappropriately targeting Conservative groups. You want to retry a trial where the defendant has confessed and plead guilty.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I only ask that you withdraw, reword or clarify the statement you began with.
    It was clear, you quoted it out of context.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If you are going to quote me, please do so in context.
    The scandal is not that the IRS was allowing Progressive groups that shouldn't get tax free status through, it was that it wasn't delaying legitimate Progressive political groups. Yet it was delaying conservative groups that eventually were given their proper status.

    My point was not that they weren't delaying Progressive groups, it was that Conservative groups were getting differential attention and delay.

    You are asking for me to do an analysis that was already done by Congress and the IRS, an analysis that led to the IRS apologizing for inappropriately targeting Conservative groups. You want to retry a trial where the defendant has confessed and plead guilty.


    It was clear, you quoted it out of context.
    Saying that "they weren't delaying Progressive groups" is a different from "wasn't delaying legitimate Progressive political groups". The word legitimate has now been removed thus changing the meaning - now you mean that they weren't delaying progressive groups at all includes the original scenario plus the other two.

    So you are still left showing that:

    1. Progressive groups not red-flagged by BOLOs were being delayed. (your original statement)
    2. Progressive groups red-flagged by BOLOs were not being delayed. (the new scenario you are now including)

    Note, before you go on another diatribe about how unfairly the right has been treated; that is not the question. I am looking for where progressive groups have been given a free pass since that is your claim (now extended even further). To me, that progressive groups were stopped means that the system is working in catching illegitimate groups.

    It was clear, you quoted it out of context.
    Hmm, so you say "it wasn't delaying legitimate Progressive political groups" and then you say your point is "not that they weren't delaying Progressive groups,". Do you see any contradiction there? Even your restatement is confused. Exactly what do you mean to say? Please try again or support that Progressive groups are getting a free pass.

  14. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  15. #13
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Saying that "they weren't delaying Progressive groups" is a different from "wasn't delaying legitimate Progressive political groups". The word legitimate has now been removed thus changing the meaning - now you mean that they weren't delaying progressive groups at all includes the original scenario plus the other two.
    Yes, because the latter was never my claim. That understanding relies on taking part of my statement out of context. The only time I reference legitimacy is to object to the examples raised by Cowboy as comparable. The examples he used to say "see they are harassing progressive group too!" were groups that were denied 501c3 status. Comparing them to the delay in approval of Conservative groups is an Apples and Oranges fallacy.

    Lets imagine the justice department started arresting Democratic activists. This would likely cause a bit of a stir. Now lets imagine the Justice Department argued that nothing is odd about this because they arrested a militiaman in Montana who was conservative, for having illegal explosives.

    Clearly that is a poor defense. Not only are the numbers vastly different, but the latter actually committed a crime, while the former (presumably) did not.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    1. Progressive groups not red-flagged by BOLOs were being delayed. (your original statement)
    2. Progressive groups red-flagged by BOLOs were not being delayed. (the new scenario you are now including)
    Neither of these scenarios is my claim at all. I'm not even sure how you could have arrived at such a conclusion.

    My point, which is supported by the IRS apology is that Conservative groups that were flagged inappropriately. Pointing out two examples of Progressive groups being flagged appropriately, does nothing to change that.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    To me, that progressive groups were stopped means that the system is working in catching illegitimate groups.
    And I wouldn't disagree that those group should have been stopped and caught. You are arguing a straw man here. No one is saying there should be no review system in place, we are saying (and the IRS agrees with us) that the methodology used inappropriately targeted conservative groups and the reason that methodology was chosen appears to be politically motivated.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes, because the latter was never my claim. That understanding relies on taking part of my statement out of context. The only time I reference legitimacy is to object to the examples raised by Cowboy as comparable. The examples he used to say "see they are harassing progressive group too!" were groups that were denied 501c3 status. Comparing them to the delay in approval of Conservative groups is an Apples and Oranges fallacy.

    Lets imagine the justice department started arresting Democratic activists. This would likely cause a bit of a stir. Now lets imagine the Justice Department argued that nothing is odd about this because they arrested a militiaman in Montana who was conservative, for having illegal explosives.

    Clearly that is a poor defense. Not only are the numbers vastly different, but the latter actually committed a crime, while the former (presumably) did not.
    You are still not being clear here. This is your full response, broken down:
    1. The scandal is not that the IRS was allowing Progressive groups that shouldn't get tax free status through [sic],
    2. it was that it wasn't delaying legitimate Progressive political groups.
    3. Yet it was delaying conservative groups that eventually were given their proper status.

    In the first phrase, you are indeed objecting to CowboyX's statement - that the scandal isn't about Progressive groups. This is true with respect to the IRS scandal's focus.

    In the second phrase, you are saying that the actual scandal is that "legitimate Progressive political groups" (your words) were not being delayed. This is the phrase we are discussing. Legitimate here could mean either they passed the BOLO test and passed straight through or it could mean that they didn't pass the BOLO and went on to being investigated. Or that there were no BOLOs at all for Progressive groups.

    The third phrase adds additional context to the statement - that on the other hand, Conservative groups (note no qualification as to their BOLO status) were delayed. It's a point of comparison and in no way changes or diminishes the sense of the second phrase. Your charges at being taken out of context are wrong.

    It is the second phrase that is under discussion, consistently fully within the context you meant it throughout my responses. Your additional example is not what you claimed to be be the actual scandal. So if you have been inaccurate then please admit it and rephrase what you should have said. As it stands, your original phrasing is inaccurate, unclear, and factually wrong. Your clarifications show this yet, you have not yet conceded that your original phrasing is inaccurate. Please do so in light of the clarifications you have made.

    Neither of these scenarios is my claim at all. I'm not even sure how you could have arrived at such a conclusion.
    Exactly, you are not being clear about

    My point, which is supported by the IRS apology is that Conservative groups that were flagged inappropriately. Pointing out two examples of Progressive groups being flagged appropriately, does nothing to change that.
    Another strawman. No one is talking about the Conservative side; we are discussing whether BOLOs existed for Progressives too. And that is the point - they did exist, as was evidenced earlier and in this recent revelation regarding additional keywords in the Progressive BOLOs list. That Liberal groups were showed to be denied meant that the scenario that illegitimate groups did indeed get caught which meant that Progressive groups also went through investigations, contrary to your statement that "legitimate Progressive political groups" were not being delayed.

    So do you agree that Liberal BOLOs existed?

    And I wouldn't disagree that those group should have been stopped and caught. You are arguing a straw man here. No one is saying there should be no review system in place, we are saying (and the IRS agrees with us) that the methodology used inappropriately targeted conservative groups and the reason that methodology was chosen appears to be politically motivated.
    Ah, but you were arguing that no review system is in place: you said it when you claimed that no legitimate Progressive political groups were not being delayed. So unless you are actually saying that the BOLOs were so accurate that ALL progressive groups that got flagged were illegitimate then it must be that legitimate progressive groups would have been caught too.

    So now if you agree that BOLOs are in place, how could they not have caught progressive groups that later turned out to be legitimate?

  17. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Has a link the the official IRS apology been posted? I can't seem to find it.

    I see where Ms. Lehner apologized:

    "The new information will only add to the criticism that has emerged since Ms. Lerner apologized to Tea Party and other conservative groups on Friday for unwarranted scrutiny."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/us...nted=1&_r=2&hp


    but where has the IRS admitted any wrongdoing?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #16
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    1. The scandal is not that the IRS was allowing Progressive groups that shouldn't get tax free status through [sic],[sic]
    I meant "through" as in "through the process" don't include a [sic] unless you are actually sure of a mistake.

    We seem to agree about this section of my response.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    In the second phrase, you are saying that the actual scandal is that "legitimate Progressive political groups" (your words) were not being delayed. This is the phrase we are discussing.
    Yes, and you are inappropriately trying to separate it from the rest of the argument.

    When people complain about differential pay, they don't say "the problem is that women are making 78 cents." They say "the problem is that women are making 78 cents to a man's dollar" (this is untrue btw, but regardless).

    You are attempting to separate out one half of a comparative statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Exactly, you are not being clear about
    That is a possible explanation, but it is just as likely (and more likely given the general understanding of this subject in the popular press) that you are failing to understand my statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Another strawman. No one is talking about the Conservative side; we are discussing whether BOLOs existed for Progressives too.
    I think you need to review the news for the past couple of months and then re-read the OP and this thread. You seem to have a very different view of the scandal than virtually everyone else in the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Ah, but you were arguing that no review system is in place: you said it when you claimed that no legitimate Progressive political groups were not being delayed.
    I'm the one being unclear? How many negatives do you have in this sentence?

    I never indicated that no review system was in place. I said the review system was clearly being inappropriately applied. A statement the IRS and President agree with me on.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Has a link the the official IRS apology been posted?
    I linked the relevant text in Post 4.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    but where has the IRS admitted any wrongdoing?
    Yes. They have not admitted illegal activity, but they have acknowledged inappropriate (ie wrong) activities.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    I see a link to an AP story, but again, no official apology from the IRS.

    "Agency officials found out about the practice last year and moved to correct it, the IRS said in a statement." http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-a...rvative-groups

    Anyone have a link?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I meant "through" as in "through the process" don't include a [sic] unless you are actually sure of a mistake.
    I read it as 'though'. But it looks like you have made a mistake, just not the one I thought you did. It was an incomplete sentence. Agreed?

    We seem to agree about this section of my response.
    Well, I thought I did, but your correction adds to the confusion; it now reads:

    1. The scandal is not that the IRS was allowing Progressive groups that shouldn't get tax free status through the process.

    I don't know why I didn't pick it up before, but it seems that you were being distracting even here. I have to enumerate the progressive scenarios again, because you are claiming that CowboyX is saying one thing but he's really pointing out another:

    P1: bolo-flagged progressive groups are let through without review - clear bias FOR P-groups
    P2a: bolo-flagged progressive groups are reviewed and let through after being found legitimate - this is the system working normally
    P2b: bolo-flagged progressive groups are reviewed and stopped after being found illegitimate - this is the system working normally
    P2c: bolo-flagged progressive groups are reviewed and let through after being found illegitimate - clear bias FOR P-groups
    P3: non-bolo-flagged progressive groups are reviewed - they are being unecessarily delayed - clear bias AGAINST P-groups
    P4: non-bolo-flagged progressive groups are not reviewed - this is the system working normally

    (and we can correspondingly refer to C* for the conservative groups)

    CX is talking about about evidence of P2b - which shows there are bolo's for P-groups & that the system is working.
    You are claiming in your initial rebuttal that he is talking about P2c, which is not true. I've enumerated the different combinations so we can refer to them more easily.

    Please clarify which scenario you think that CX is raising.


    Yes, and you are inappropriately trying to separate it from the rest of the argument.
    I don't think so, I've read it in different ways and don't get your point and your points always seems to support my argument that you're not comparing like-for-like scenarios as enumerated above.

    When people complain about differential pay, they don't say "the problem is that women are making 78 cents." They say "the problem is that women are making 78 cents to a man's dollar" (this is untrue btw, but regardless).

    You are attempting to separate out one half of a comparative statement.
    Here's what I think you're saying. Let's say that 'more qualified people' means the same a 'legitimate' in your scenario here. Now we both agree that 'more qualified people' should get paid more than 'less qualified people' because they deserve more due to their additional contributions (potential or otherwise).

    I see you as saying:
    2. it was that it wasn't delaying legitimate Progressive political groups.
    3. Yet it was delaying conservative groups that eventually were given their proper status.

    [2] It was that it wasn't that more qualified men are being paid less. [3] Yet, women were being paid less.

    You we both agree that [3] is what the issue is (women paid less & conservative groups being delayed) but you fail to be consistent in your comparisons:

    a) In introducing the word 'legitimate', in this case 'more qualified'; your first part makes no sense. Of course more qualified people aren't being paid less and nor should legitimate P-groups be delayed (either if they're not bolo-flagged or if they had been but passed review). It's practically a non-sequitur.

    b) In failing to apply the same qualifier on the conservative groups; we don't know if you're talking about qualified women or unqualified women. For qualified women, it would be true - then in that case, we are talking about C2b (that conservative groups bolo-flagged are being investigated but let through) -- there is indeed evidence for this but that's normal. On the other hand, for unqualified women makes complete sense to pay them less; this would be C2b - illegitimate groups have been stopped.


    So on the one hand, all put together now:

    1. You are forwarding either a non-scenario (that bolo-lists don't exist or the system doesn't exist) or you are claiming a scenario (P3 or C3) that there is no evidence for.
    2. A non-qualified statement that conflates several scenarios together (C2a & C2b). We have evidence for C2a but both C2a & C2b are normal.

    It is P3 that I am confused about - it doesn't make sense, there is no evidence for it and it's not even equivalent to the latter part.


    I think you need to review the news for the past couple of months and then re-read the OP and this thread. You seem to have a very different view of the scandal than virtually everyone else in the US.

    That is a possible explanation, but it is just as likely (and more likely given the general understanding of this subject in the popular press) that you are failing to understand my statements.
    Appealing to popular arguments and understandings is a fallacy. Not to mention that I am not even really discussing the actual scandal but your expansion of it.

    I am interpreting your words according to how the facts & evidence stand and putting together your arguments and using your own example to show what you actually said. You seem to be complaining of a normally running process vs a scenario that there is no evidence for in rebutting an incorrect understanding CX's post.

    JJ: Ah, but you were arguing that no review system is in place: you said it when you claimed that no legitimate Progressive political groups were not being delayed.
    I'm the one being unclear? How many negatives do you have in this sentence?
    Well, three but it's broken down: so that at most, it was only two.

    I never indicated that no review system was in place. I said the review system was clearly being inappropriately applied. A statement the IRS and President agree with me on.
    Is two negatives in one sentence a legitimate reason not to respond to a point?

    But again, my objection is on how you are bringing the corresponding P-group into the mix. There is no analysis, my detailed breakdown and my correction of your scenario, where that phrase makes sense.

  21. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    @Squatch - are we done?

  22. #20
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    @Squatch - are we done?
    I thought I had replied to this, sorry I missed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I read it as 'though'. But it looks like you have made a mistake, just not the one I thought you did. It was an incomplete sentence. Agreed?
    No. It is only an incomplete sentence because you broke it up into two sentences. I made an complete sentence that you then divided.

    This was the original statement: " The scandal is not that the IRS was allowing Progressive groups that shouldn't get tax free status through, it was that it wasn't delaying legitimate Progressive political groups."

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    CX is talking about about evidence of P2b - which shows there are bolo's for P-groups & that the system is working.
    You are claiming in your initial rebuttal that he is talking about P2c, which is not true.
    CX is putting forward evidence of P2b. That is how the thread started.

    I am not claiming that he is talking about P2c, I have made no claim that illegitmate Progressive groups were allowed through.

    My point, rather, was two fold. One, that the bolo list itself seems to have been politically motivated, as has been offered up on several occasions here. Two, that the processing times for legitimate progressive groups and legitimate conservative groups is disproportionate. The latter has been admitted by the IRS.

    Lets do an example to hopefully clear this up.

    There are ten groups applying for status in our hypothetical. Five are conservative (C), five are progressive (P). One of each should not receive the 501.3c status (red).


    Group Processing time (days)
    C1 103
    C2 95
    C3 100
    C4 110
    C5 101
    P1 65
    P2 105
    P3 70
    P4 55
    P5 65

    So in this hypothetical, we see that legitimate progressive groups were approved faster than legitimate conservative groups. The reasons given by the IRS audit for this discrepancy are the terms used for selection and the excessive level of investigation that was required for flagged conservative groups, including asking for inappropriate information.

    CX's reference pointed out that there was a P2, and says "a ha it was all exaggerated." But that has never been anyone's complaint. The complaint is that it is far harder for Conservative groups that are legitimate to get that status than Progressive groups and that the method used to determine flagging was inappropriate.

    Does that clarify why CX's response is irrelevant to the actual complaint?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •