Among whites in the latest General Social Survey (2008) [conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago], only 4.5% of small-government advocates express the view that “most Blacks/African-Americans have less in-born ability to learn,” compared to 12.3% of those who favor bigger government or take a middle position expressing this racist view.
In 2008 12.3% of white Democrats in the U.S. believed that African Americans were born with less ability, compared to only 6.6% of white Republicans.
In 16 surveys from 1977 through 2008, overall white Republicans were significantly less racist on the in-born ability question than white Democrats (13.3% to 17.3%), and white conservative Republicans were significantly less racist than other white Americans (11.7% to 14.7%)…
...overall white Democrats were significantly more likely to support segregated neighborhoods than white Republicans (30.4% to 26.3%).
In Game Change [about the 2008 Presidential race] John Heliemann and Mark Halperin report: 'The day after Iowa, [Clinton] phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. Recounting the conversation later Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee"'.
[Arkansas State Trooper] Larry Patterson confirmed that he frequently heard Bill Clinton use “n—–” to refer to both Jesse Jackson and Little Rock black leader Robert McIntosh. Longtime Clinton paramour Dolly Kyle Browning corroborated Patterson on Clinton’s use of “n—–.” “Not only did he use the ‘N’ word, he called him a ‘GDN’ #$%$ n------], if you catch my drift,” Browning told Fox News in 1999. Brown also told NewsMax that the president would regularly make derogatory comments about African-Americans in private. “He has used the ‘N’ word before. Bill would make snide remarks about blacks behind their backs.”
It's time to head for the bomb shelters tomorrow at 2 p.m. ET, Jim Cramer told his "Mad Money" TV show viewers Tuesday.
He said that after the Federal Reserve's announcement the bears will be out in force. Only after the bombing has subsided should investors consider picking among the rubble.
I shouldn't use words like imbecile and so on but I don't know what else to think when you keep assuming things for which there is no actual evidence, disputing things that the IRS itself has admitted are true, combined with a constantly shifting and contradictory line of argument.
From Politifact (not a friend to Republicans):
"During the Bush administration, liberal groups were targeted" by the IRS, similar to recent targeting.
Rep. Jim McDermott, June 4, in a congressional hearing
McDermott's office pointed us to a recent Salon article that described how the IRS subjected the NAACP, Greenpeace and a liberal Episcopal church in California to sometimes intense scrutiny.
The IRS moved to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena.
That case dragged on for three years before the IRS dropped it. From 2004 to 2009, the IRS had a Political Activities Compliance Initiative aimed at 501(c)(3) groups that might have endorsed a candidate or otherwise crossed the line between charitable work and electioneering.
But the current controversy, which involves the examination of nearly 300 groups, is significantly different from the examples cited in the Salon article, experts told us.
• In the current case, the inspector general found that IRS staff used "inappropriate criteria" to identify groups for special attention. A group's name or a focus on government debt and spending triggered IRS action, rather than the group's activities.
• Most of the current groups, about 70 percent, held or were applying for 501(c)(4) status, not 501(c)(3). The limits on (c)(3) groups — the ones examined under Bush — are much more strict than for (c)(4) groups.
• The inspector general found that all current cases with "tea party," "patriots" or "9/12" in their name were singled out.
While some liberal groups were audited, the numbers we could find were small, largely confined to 501(c)(3) nonprofits where the rules are more strict, and stemmed from complaints levied by outsiders.
...the systematic nature of the IRS actions between 2010 and 2012 represents a distinctly different set of circumstances. We rate the statement Mostly False.
"Well, I read the thing about people with the name "progressive" in their application being targeted."
You got an excerpt of the article?
So this WAS abuse, BUT it was justifiable that the Tea Party was treated this way, which means it wasn't abuse. But if it was abuse then we have to assume liberal groups were also abused with no evidence. I guess we should just pick one or the other. It's a made up world.
You're statements are so continually contradictory combined with made up "facts" that it's clear you're either psychotic, stupid, a congenital liar or some combination of all three.
The liberal groups don't get hundreds of questions or wait years without any decision IMBECILE. That's why it's a scandal in the first place IMBECILE.
Washington, D.C., attorney John Pomeranz represents liberal organizations seeking tax-exemption. He told CBS News that he has found some of the IRS requests of tea party groups "new" and "very troubling," and said he doesn't recall getting similar demands for his liberal clients.
Engelbrecht's attorney, Mitchell, says the IRS process for conservative groups was relatively painless, often taking just a few months, until about 2010 when there was an abrupt shift: simple questions became intrusive, lengthy interrogations requiring professional legal help. Applicants sometimes had to spend tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees, they lost revenue, and in some cases, got so discouraged that they gave up on tax-exempt status altogether.
Texas businesswoman Catherine Engelbrecht says she never had trouble with the government. That is, until she founded two groups with conservative causes. Now, she's telling a fascinating story of alleged harassment not only by the IRS but also other agencies that she believes targeted her and her organizations because of their political ties.
IRS officials have recently admitted improperly giving special scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status because the agency was "swamped with applications" and looking for "shortcuts". But in a federal lawsuit filed last week, Engelbrecht claims the IRS' actions toward her interests actually created a great deal more effort and paperwork for all concerned.
The trouble began shortly after Engelbrecht founded True the Vote, which trains election volunteers and aims to root out voter fraud; and King Street Patriots, a group with ideals similar to the Tea Party. Both sought tax-exempt status from the IRS in July 2010.
Within months of the groups filing for tax-exempt status, Engelbrecht claims she started getting hit by an onslaught of harassment: six FBI domestic terrorism inquiries, an IRS visit, two IRS business audits, two IRS personal audits, and inspections of her equipment manufacturing company by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Texas environmental quality officials.
All the while, the IRS tax-exempt applications seemed to languish. Engelbrecht says the IRS requested additional information from True the Vote five times, requiring thousands of pages of documentation. Engelbrecht estimates she's spent more than $100,000 in attorney and accountant fees to process the IRS requests. With its tax-exempt status in limbo, she says True the Vote had to return a $35,000 grant and cannot effectively fund raise.
Also nutjob you're contradicting yourself. You're justifying targeting Tea Party groups and simultaneously implying they WEREN'T targeted, i.e. that liberal groups must have gotten the same treatment. The IRS has already admitted that they were targeted, as I already pointed out, and so you've been trying to justify it, even though the IRS doesn't claim any justification. Then out of the blue you start suggesting they did the same thing to liberal groups, which contradicts the point that they targeted the Tea Party.
True the Vote (TTV), the nation's leading voters’ rights organization, filed suit in federal court in Washington today against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), asking the Court to grant its long-awaited tax exempt status and seeking damages for the unlawful actions by the IRS in the processing of its application for exempt status. ActRight Legal Foundation, a 501(c)3 fundamental rights and public interest law firm represents True the Vote in the lawsuit.
“We’ve been waiting for three years to receive a decision from the IRS about our tax exempt status,” True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht said. “After answering hundreds of questions and producing thousands of documents, we’re done waiting. The IRS does not have the power to pocket veto our application. Federal law empowers groups like True the Vote to force a decision in court – which is precisely what we aim to do.”
Why don't you just make up a fact out of thin air that the liberal groups got asked the same questions and got their applications delayed for years in your normal psychotic fashion?
THE LIBERAL GROUPS DO NOT PERFORM 50% SOCIAL WELFARE EITHER PSYCHOTIC IMBECILE.
What does the fact the Tea Party complained since May 2012 got to do with it? Another irrelevant point nutjob.
As I said the liberal groups don't spend on social welfare either nutjob.
Whatever YOU associate the Tea Parties with is irrelevant. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW freak. Under the law everyone is supposed to be treated the same. The IRS is not allowed to go in with some preconception that this or that group is not likely to qualify and treat them differently. If some question is legitimately needed to determine whether they qualify then that would presumably be asked of everyone and would be a standard question psychotic nutjob. They can't logically know in advance what the answer would be if asked of a liberal group and so determine they don't need to ask it psycho.
Also as I said previously nutjob, if they aren't qualified under the law then you just reject them and tell them why they were rejected, not string it out for years and ask dozens of questions that had no logical connection to whether they qualify nutjob.
What do you think the criminal investigation is about if this is just a legitimate enforcement of the law nutjob?
Your claim that the groups spend money on candidates directly is erroneous as well. They do not. You have NO FREAKING IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
And of course you continue to pretend there's no White House connection, which is itself highly illegal.
A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION of this has been going on since mid May. I don't imagine you're aware of that though. They probably don't talk about that at Kos. Not that I expect anything to come out of it - they'll say they couldn't find out who ordered it. But you comically keep insisting that what they did was correct, even as it's rather obvious you have NO FREAKING IDEA what they actually did do. You continually just make it up as you go like a pathological liar.
Attkisson spoke to Dom Giordano about the investigation.
“This suspicious activity has been going on for quite some time – both on my CBS computer and my personal computer,” Attkisson said. “CBS then hired its own independent cyber security firm, which has been conducting a thorough forensic exam … they were able to rule out malware, phishing programs, that sort of thing.”
“There were just signs of unusual happenings for many months, odd behavior like the computers just turning themselves on at night and then turning themselves back off again. I was basically able to verify and obtain information from my sources on the suspicious activity and I reported it to CBS News in January because of course it included CBS equipment and systems.”
Attkisson could not speak about whether the hacking was related to her questions about Benghazi because of “legal counsel,” but she did say her work at that time was primarily on the occurrence.
“Whoever was in my work computer, the only thing I was working on were work-related things with CBS were big stories I guess during the time period in questions were I guess Benghazi and ‘Fast and Furious.’ The intruders did have access to personal information including passwords to my financial accounts and so on, but didn’t tamper with those, so they weren’t interested in stealing my identity or doing things to my finances. So people can decide on their own what they might have been trying to do in there.”
The liberal groups do not spend "at least half of their revenues on social servicers or something like that" either.
What does MoveOn, created to defend Clinton, spend their money on?
What does Organizing for Action spend money on?
How long are you going to stick to this absurd stance?