One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.
Progress Texas, another of the organizations, faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS inquiries.
In a statement late yesterday, the tax agency said it had pooled together the politically active nonpartisan applicants -- including a “minority” that were identified because of their names. “It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement.
Opinionators be on notice: When you venture into the realm of the quantitative — even when you may not realize it — there’s a number-crunching ombudsman waiting to audit you. Nate Silver, the biggest winner of the 2012 presidential election, saw an opportunity to use numbers in fact-checking Noonan’s representations about this “second part” of the IRS scandal.
His conclusion? Uh, Noonan needs some more data if she’s going to corroborate her contention:
[E]ven with no political targeting at all, hundreds of thousands of conservative voters would have been chosen for audits in the I.R.S.’s normal course of business. Among these hundreds of thousands of voters, thousands would undoubtedly have gone beyond merely voting to become political activists.
The fact that Ms. Noonan has identified four conservatives from that group of thousands provides no evidence at all toward her hypothesis. Nor would it tell us very much if dozens or even hundreds of conservative activists disclosed that they had been audited. This is exactly what you would expect in a country where there are 1.5 million audits every year.
At the end of his post, Silver does a bit of knife-twisting, writing that some folks last year engaged in similar quantitative atrocities in concluding that Mitt Romney was likely to win the presidential election, “while dismissing polls that collectively surveyed hundreds of thousands of voters in swing states and largely showed Mr. Obama ahead.”
And in case you've forgotten, in predicting the outcome of the last election, Nate Silver was right, and Noonan was wrong. And so were you.
How could coward like DR even show his face on here?
Hey, Spock, I challenged you to meet me and talk your trash in person, and you pussed out like a little bitch. So thanks for proving once again what paper tigers conservatives are. You're their perfect representative. I'm glad you're here.
Since I know you'll never answer that question, maybe some of you wingnuts can answer this one:
Why doesn't Darell Issa want Thomas Pickering to testify in public? Why is he demanding a "closed door" deposition? Is he afraid Pickering will show him up as the buffoon he is?
And those of you who had to Google who Thomas Pickering is really need to drop out of this discussion now.
And they admit it should have been increased, so again: WHERE'S THE COVERUP?
Never mind: "Benghazi coverup" has become part of the wingnut faith. And by faith, I'm using the definition "firm belief in something for which there is no proof ".
DR, I have read the page you referenced 3 times now, I fail to see how it answers the question that has been raised.
You can lead a wingnut to answers, but you can't make him think.
"Special Mission Benghazi's uncertain future after 2012 and its "non-status" as a temporary residential facility made allocations of resources for security and personnel more difficult, and left responsibility to meet security standards to the working level in the field, with very limited resources."
I'm sorry, if you still don't get how that answers the question of why security wasn't beefed up, then I can't help you any more.
dustyrhoades 8 hours, 18 minutes ago
History Lesson
IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row
One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected. Progress Texas, another of the organizations, faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS inquiries. In a statement late yesterday, the tax agency said it had pooled together the politically active nonpartisan applicants -- including a “minority” that were identified because of their names. “It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement.
dustyrhoades 8 hours, 42 minutes ago
History Lesson
Nate Silver takes Ms. Noonan to school:
Opinionators be on notice: When you venture into the realm of the quantitative — even when you may not realize it — there’s a number-crunching ombudsman waiting to audit you. Nate Silver, the biggest winner of the 2012 presidential election, saw an opportunity to use numbers in fact-checking Noonan’s representations about this “second part” of the IRS scandal. His conclusion? Uh, Noonan needs some more data if she’s going to corroborate her contention: [E]ven with no political targeting at all, hundreds of thousands of conservative voters would have been chosen for audits in the I.R.S.’s normal course of business. Among these hundreds of thousands of voters, thousands would undoubtedly have gone beyond merely voting to become political activists. The fact that Ms. Noonan has identified four conservatives from that group of thousands provides no evidence at all toward her hypothesis. Nor would it tell us very much if dozens or even hundreds of conservative activists disclosed that they had been audited. This is exactly what you would expect in a country where there are 1.5 million audits every year. At the end of his post, Silver does a bit of knife-twisting, writing that some folks last year engaged in similar quantitative atrocities in concluding that Mitt Romney was likely to win the presidential election, “while dismissing polls that collectively surveyed hundreds of thousands of voters in swing states and largely showed Mr. Obama ahead.”
And in case you've forgotten, in predicting the outcome of the last election, Nate Silver was right, and Noonan was wrong. And so were you.
dustyrhoades 8 hours, 49 minutes ago
History Lesson
Peggy Noonan? LOL.
dustyrhoades 19 hours, 41 minutes ago
Scandals Come Thick and Fast
How could coward like DR even show his face on here?
Hey, Spock, I challenged you to meet me and talk your trash in person, and you pussed out like a little bitch. So thanks for proving once again what paper tigers conservatives are. You're their perfect representative. I'm glad you're here.
dustyrhoades 22 hours, 8 minutes ago
History Lesson
If that's your idea of a "presidency destroying" scandal, you are truly pathetic.
dustyrhoades 22 hours, 26 minutes ago
Scandals Come Thick and Fast
You conservatives used to be on board for the Total War Against Terror.
Here's another great moment in conservatism:
by dustyrhoades
And now we're supposed to believe you're defenders of the press? Child, please.
dustyrhoades 22 hours, 29 minutes ago
History Lesson
Since I know you'll never answer that question, maybe some of you wingnuts can answer this one:
Why doesn't Darell Issa want Thomas Pickering to testify in public? Why is he demanding a "closed door" deposition? Is he afraid Pickering will show him up as the buffoon he is?
And those of you who had to Google who Thomas Pickering is really need to drop out of this discussion now.
dustyrhoades 22 hours, 40 minutes ago
History Lesson
They agree with you that security was handled badly, fuggy. So where's the coverup?
dustyrhoades 23 hours, 49 minutes ago
History Lesson
And they admit it should have been increased, so again: WHERE'S THE COVERUP?
Never mind: "Benghazi coverup" has become part of the wingnut faith. And by faith, I'm using the definition "firm belief in something for which there is no proof ".
dustyrhoades 23 hours, 51 minutes ago
History Lesson
DR, I have read the page you referenced 3 times now, I fail to see how it answers the question that has been raised.
You can lead a wingnut to answers, but you can't make him think.
"Special Mission Benghazi's uncertain future after 2012 and its "non-status" as a temporary residential facility made allocations of resources for security and personnel more difficult, and left responsibility to meet security standards to the working level in the field, with very limited resources."
I'm sorry, if you still don't get how that answers the question of why security wasn't beefed up, then I can't help you any more.