TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
It just means that conservative groups were not very creative when naming their organizations.
The name of the group should have no bearing on whether they're flagged for further investigation though. Doubly so when the name selection targets names that are associated with one broad "side" of our political spectrum. I mean, I'm fine with them taking a close look at "terrorist bombers unite", or "child killers of america". But in this case, they were targeting based on names associated with
simply being a conservative oriented organization [a BOLO list of commonly used terms], which is not cool at all.
Fixed.
Here's a portion of the list, in case you were interested Healthcare, Progressive, Blue, Medical Marijuana, Occupy, Advocacy.
Er. Did you read the paper you linked? First off, it's massively redacted. Secondly, without understanding how these different categories of applications were handled, we can't assume anything by the mere presence on this list. For example, one of the categories is "Accountable Care Organizations". These are defined as organizations created by the Affordable Care Act. They're given special attention, and I'm going to assume that "special attention" in this case doesn't mean "ignore their application for a couple years".
Also, "Occupy"? You clearly didn't bother to read the document you linked. Unless you meant to refer to organizations advocating action regarding occupied territories mostly in the middle east. Was that what you meant?
Quote:
Not saying it's right that they did use the name to determine the level of scrutiny, but it's clear it wasn't because they were conservative oriented. It clearly targets groups who have left leaning, "partisan and anti-republican" views.
No. It clearly identifies and categorizes a wide assortment of common types of applications. What it does based on those categories is the issue here.