Seriously. Most Americans would disagree with you.

You are a moving target Dave. You said that Progressives are not trying to tax Move On. Don't change the topic.

I don't know of anyone claiming that Liberal groups were targeted. I haven't seen the Full list of terms. Have you?

I didn't say "if targeting exists". I was referring to whether or not tax exempt status for political organizations exists. As far as your question goes, organizations with specific terms in their names were targeted. These terms are associated with the Tea Party, not the GOP.

This is the correct (non misleading) report on what happened. The probe was listed on Treasury's public website. To say the WH knew about it is as ridiculous as saying the public "knew" about it (as well as the Congress and the Press should have known about it).

These were Bush appointees and career bureaucrats that did this. You may want to question why.

Tea Partiers are being snookered by their own biases. Carl Rove and company had as much of a reason to target Tea Party groups as Obama did. If anything, the Tea Party has as much of a risk to establishment GOP types as they do to Obama. Obama would probably be better off with more Tea Party money than less (splitting the party helps rather than hurts). Those at the heart of this scandal were either career people or Bush appointees, not Obama picks. The fact that many establishment "Conservative" groups were granted tax exemption is further proof of it.

Um, Treasury was tasked with investigating the IRS on this matter in response to questions that arose after previous Congressional testimony. It was the resulting Treasury report that was the subject of Congressional testimony this week. The report states that the investigation began in June of 2012. I fail to see how this tidbit actually adds anything to the debate. Should the President be interfering with investigations at the Dept of Treasury? Is there any evidence that he did? Is knowledge of an investigation the same as knowledge of the details of it, and knowledge of how it was progressing?

You lack critical thinking skills. We have more guns in the U.S. we don't have higher gun ownership. It's a fact. You cannot compare our definition of "violent crime" to others on an apples to apples basis as well. We use different definitions. If you believe the fact that the countries you listed are worse makes our levels of violence acceptable there is no way anyone can reason with you.

The article we are discussing is referring to a decline in gun violence through 2011. Even your silly personal account is irrelevant.