[Democrat_media]

It's already been proven that the IRS was harassing those tea party groups in many ways . then the IRS demands a list of members or “donors” of those oppressed groups . then the IRS also audits 10% of those on the lists the IRS obtained.

the IRS is supposed to look at the whole population and then from that determine who to audit . and you say they did that . bs. then by sheer coincidence the audited end up on the same lists the IRS obtained from the tea party groups the IRS was already oppressing . no way that 10% audited from the general population end up on the same small lists of groups the IRS was ALREADY oppressing and harassing with books of questions. and you defend this tyranny. the IRS audited them because they were on those lists of tea party groups

these were 3 small lists . IRS audits 10% on those lists

The only common denominator was they were on those lists. what other criteria can you prove that caused them to be audited . you can't and are just defending tyranny

The IRS harassed these groups for months with unjust interrogations so you want us to believe the IRS wouldn't also audit them. the IRS was already committing a crime , targeting them , harassing them not letting them organize etc.

[nitzy]

Do you think it would be a good idea to more regularly audit businesses which owe large payments to the IRS than individuals who earn little income and are receiving a couple hundred dollars in returns? Wouldn't that be better stewardship of the public's money, to target resources on areas where there is more likely to be errors or fraud? If you agree, then you acknowledge that it may be beneficial to not look at all tax filings equally. Some factors are legitimate, some are not. Income, the amount of deductions, whether a business or not, etc...may be legitimate reasons to scrutinize a return. Political donations to tea parties are not a legitimate factor. We need to look at all of the data and determine which factors where being used in this case.

so you want us to believe the IRS wouldn't also audit them

When did I say that? I specifically said that they probably did. With a little more information we can be sure of it.

You are starting your argument by using statistics (10% vs 1% audited). When people on here suggest that we should keep using statistics to a deeper level to really nail down exactly what occurred, you claim there is no reason to do that. You seem to be saying that to look at any other statistics is simply covering for tyranny. We all agree that Obama is a tyrant. You see this 10% vs 1% number and think that you now have black and white clear cut evidence of his tyranny. It may be. But it may not be. For some reason you must be afraid of looking too closely at the data and I can't understand why. Don't you care about being right? Or is it more important to justify your narrative. Some people look at as much evidence as they can and then draw a narrative from it. Other people rely on emotions, intuition and anecdotes to draw a narrative then look for information that backs it up. When they find that information they cling to it tightly and refuse to acknowledge any other information that might contradict it.

I am not claiming your narrative is wrong. I am claiming your methods are.