If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Before you jump on the "OMG IRS/BENGHAZI/OBAMA" scandal bandwagon, read the Inspector General's report on the IRS   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 172
    More: Interesting, IRS, inspector generals, scandals  
•       •       •

4478 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2013 at 11:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



172 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-15 12:21:30 PM

xanadian: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.


Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.
 
2013-05-15 12:22:50 PM
All but one Christian Coalition state organizations lost their IRS tax-exempt status

Most likely, if they hadn't, there would be no Tea Party.

Tax collecting has been around for as long as tax evasion.
 
2013-05-15 12:23:16 PM

mistrmind: Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


Hahaha, wow. The density of potato in this post is going to make the thread collapse into a quantum black hole.
 
2013-05-15 12:24:51 PM

odinsposse: Citrate1007: A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.

Except they weren't tax returns so that doesn't have any bearing. This was undeniably a screw up by the IRS and it really isn't helpful to pretend it was not. Arguing that it was okay just makes the allegations the right is throwing around about it being oppression or political bullying sound more credible. Stop it.


What are you babbling about? If you file for tax-exempt status, and register as what appears to be a political group that does not deserve tax-exempt status, it seems to me you should expect to have to pony up a little more info to prove you deserve said status.

If there had been a sudden explosion of groups named "committee to elect Democrats" I would expect to see the exact same thing happen.

But anyway, it's not like they were targeting "conservative" groups, only political groups, because the Tea Party is not a conservative, Republican group.
 
2013-05-15 12:25:00 PM
C/P Myself for everyone to ignore:

Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code defines tax-exempt social welfare groups like this: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
But a few lines later, we have: To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.
So, in 1959 when this change went in, we have taken a word with legal meaning and changed it to something that is undefined.
As I see it, this is the problem.
Primarily is totally undefined and open to individual interpretation.

Now, why does everyone want to be a 501(c)(4)? Because the donor list is private.
 
2013-05-15 12:25:10 PM
No one faults "job creators" from tossing out resumes based on keywords. It makes their jobs easier, and anything that eases the burden of job creators is good for America. Yet it's suddenly not okay when the IRS does it? Not to mention they didn't even reject applications based on keywords, just required additional scrutiny?

The correct response is "Meh."

Either fund the IRS to go after everyone, or stop biatching when they take shortcuts that would be hailed as business savvy in the private sector.
I'd expect the same kind of thing to happen if liberal groups suddenly surged around a few key words, but since the Tea Party suddenly realized it was patriotic to oppose the blah guy, they bore the brunt of the IRS's shortcut.
 
2013-05-15 12:25:35 PM

mistrmind: xanadian: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.

Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


Before Obama government agencies didn't have controversies at all. That's what you get for electing the blah man sheeple!
 
2013-05-15 12:25:47 PM

mistrmind: xanadian: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.

Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


Except for how you have every fact in this post wrong, I agree with you.
 
2013-05-15 12:26:01 PM

Fart_Machine: Citrate1007: A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.

Except they were flagging them using key words instead of looking at the actual organization. It's bullshait profiling but the people crying the loudest wouldn't have a problem with doing it based on skin color by law enforcement.


Due to budget cuts, that's the way the IRS works. They have various flags that can be set off in returns. If you take the home office deduction, that is a big red flag 'cause most people don't know the narrow way that is to be used and counted.

Someone researched and found that 501s with TEA or Patriot were more likely to be fraudulent. Since the story coming out is that it was around a 25% retraction rate, they may have been on to something.

Another thought is that lets say they reviewed 10% of all 501s. Since 2010, there has been exponential growth of conservative 501s. So more conservative ones would have been reviewed.
 
2013-05-15 12:28:46 PM

Witty_Retort: C/P Myself for everyone to ignore:

Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code defines tax-exempt social welfare groups like this: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
But a few lines later, we have: To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.
So, in 1959 when this change went in, we have taken a word with legal meaning and changed it to something that is undefined.
As I see it, this is the problem.
Primarily is totally undefined and open to individual interpretation.

Now, why does everyone want to be a 501(c)(4)? Because the donor list is private.


I would like to note - again - that many Occupy groups were rejected out of hand for 501 status, some because of lack of an approved board structure (which I understand, though it is bullshiat), but many because they were overtly political groups. We didn't get the benefit of having to fill out a questionnaire and then getting accepted.
 
2013-05-15 12:29:23 PM

Witty_Retort: C/P Myself for everyone to ignore:

Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code defines tax-exempt social welfare groups like this: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
But a few lines later, we have: To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.
So, in 1959 when this change went in, we have taken a word with legal meaning and changed it to something that is undefined.
As I see it, this is the problem.
Primarily is totally undefined and open to individual interpretation.

Now, why does everyone want to be a 501(c)(4)? Because the donor list is private.


Check out the chart on page 3.  501(c)(4) applications doubled from 2010 to 2012.
 
2013-05-15 12:32:21 PM
"Unfortunately it is evident this report was written with a conclusion already predetermined for political reasons. The evidence is that the report's conclusion matches the narrative by most pre-report."

The only "wrong doing" was that the groups were flagged for scrutiny because of the groups' names, rather than activity... activity that would be revealed by scrutiny...

So what I've been hearing is that a punch of anti-tax, extreme right fringe groups that have been applying for tax exemption as "social welfare" organizations, while their primary purpose has been to biatch and moan about anything the darker complexioned guy that was elected president has even attempted to do.  (I knew people who started the Lansing, MI/MSU Tea Party, they were working on it before Pres. Obama was even inaugurated); Now these groups that do nothing but political posturing are upset they were audited for violating their tax exemption by being political?
 
2013-05-15 12:32:52 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Hahaha, wow. The density of potato in this post is going to make the thread collapse into a quantum black hole.


In other words, you have no argument to counter his point, so you just play the "derp" card.

cameroncrazy1984: Can you name one group that was denied tax-exempt status in all of this? One? And can you please explain why that is fascism?


It wasn't in denying any group tax exempt status, it is in creating time and paperwork barriers that no other group had to go through, based exclusively on the political leanings of the group.

Its not like we havent been over this half a dozen times already....
 
2013-05-15 12:34:12 PM
I think I'm pretty liberal, but I think what the Cincinnati office did was absolutely wrong. Wrong, and lazy. And when their superiors told them to stop being lazy, they shrugged, pretended to change their ways, and then started right back up again. That's insubordination. That entire group should be fired for being wrong, lazy, and insubordinate.
 
2013-05-15 12:34:35 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: What are you babbling about? If you file for tax-exempt status, and register as what appears to be a political group that does not deserve tax-exempt status, it seems to me you should expect to have to pony up a little more info to prove you deserve said status.


Which wasn't the case here. The application for non-profit status isn't an information free one that just gets a stamp. You have to include who you are and what you plan on doing. Some of those groups were flagged for inquiry not because of what they were doing but because they had conservative buzzwords in their names or supported things that conservatives might support. Then those applications were delayed for an unusual amount of time and an inordinate amount of information that the IRS didn't really need was requested.

If there had been a sudden explosion of groups named "committee to elect Democrats" I would expect to see the exact same thing happen.
 But anyway, it's not like they were targeting "conservative" groups, only political groups, because the Tea Party is not a conservative, Republican group.


Except their policies did target conservative groups. There weren't any equivalent flags for terms like "progressive" or "environmental" Literally everyone agrees that the IRS screwed up, including this report, and trying to hand wave away an obvious problem makes liberals look worse and conservative conspiracy theorists look more credible. So stop doing that.
 
2013-05-15 12:36:11 PM

o5iiawah: It wasn't in denying any group tax exempt status, it is in creating time and paperwork barriers that no other group had to go through, based exclusively on the political leanings of the group.


A liberal group took 9 months to get approved. I'm still not seeing the problem here. Also, it should be noted that these groups were supposed to be social-welfare groups and not political organizations. Hence the scrutiny in the first place.
 
2013-05-15 12:36:41 PM

mistrmind: Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government. So big that he himself can no longer control it. In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader? (Answer: Not very, if at all). Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies. It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


Are you really comparing Tea Party members to people that were persecuted by McCarthy?  Wow.....
 
2013-05-15 12:36:45 PM

o5iiawah: A Dark Evil Omen: Hahaha, wow. The density of potato in this post is going to make the thread collapse into a quantum black hole.

In other words, you have no argument to counter his point, so you just play the "derp" card.


Oh, look at you. What point? The government has shrunk dramatically under the current administration. It's the height of idiocy to call the actions of one office in Cincinnati a coordinated attack on Fartfarta's political enemies. Comparing "additional scrutiny followed by granting status" to McCarthy's and the HUAC's high-profile witch hunts is just balls-out ridiculous. And, finally, we are back to asserting a BENGHAZI COVERUP! SOMETHING WAS DEFINITELY COVERED UP WE DON'T KNOW WHAT BUT WE ARE MAD AS HELL!

Now, the question is, who is dumber, him for saying it or you for defending it?
 
2013-05-15 12:38:47 PM
I still don't understand what is there to be outraged about here....  Bush had the FBI infiltrate liberal anti-war groups and occupy protesters.  Why isn't anybody screaming about that.
 
2013-05-15 12:39:05 PM

Doctor Funkenstein: Eh, it's bullshiat that the baggers were singled out and it sounds like the IRS will rightfully pay for it and get their act together. That said, the tea party members and supporters can still go suck shiat from a giraffe's dick for being the destructive, ignorant assholes that they are.


This. I am never for profiling, but it looks like things are being taken care of properly. I do love the delicious irony of the Teabaggers applying for welfare queen status. If you're tax exempt do you get an Obama phone?
 
2013-05-15 12:39:58 PM

Warlordtrooper: I still don't understand what is there to be outraged about here....   Bush had the FBI infiltrate liberal anti-war groups and occupy protesters.  Why isn't anybody screaming about that.


Uh, I think your timeline's a little farked-up there, chief.
 
2013-05-15 12:41:29 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Warlordtrooper: I still don't understand what is there to be outraged about here....   Bush had the FBI infiltrate liberal anti-war groups and occupy protesters.  Why isn't anybody screaming about that.

Uh, I think your timeline's a little farked-up there, chief.


No. all president's have access to the same time machine. It's Tardis One.
 
2013-05-15 12:41:50 PM
That's a lot of words for "over zealous staffer, nothing to see here."
 
2013-05-15 12:41:57 PM

o5iiawah: A Dark Evil Omen: Hahaha, wow. The density of potato in this post is going to make the thread collapse into a quantum black hole.

In other words, you have no argument to counter his point, so you just play the "derp" card.


You can'treason someone out of a positionthey didn't reason themselves into.

cameroncrazy1984: Can you name one group that was denied tax-exempt status in all of this? One? And can you please explain why that is fascism?

It wasn't in denying any group tax exempt status, it is in creating time and paperwork barriers that no other group had to go through, based exclusively on the political leanings of the group.

Its not like we havent been over this half a dozen times already....


Is it because they were conservative, or is it because they were blatantly using political names for what is supposed to be a non-political entity? What non-TEA Party conservative groups were being targeted?
 
2013-05-15 12:42:58 PM

o5iiawah: cameroncrazy1984: Can you name one group that was denied tax-exempt status in all of this? One? And can you please explain why that is fascism?

It wasn't in denying any group tax exempt status, it is in creating time and paperwork barriers that no other group had to go through, based exclusively on the political leanings of the group.

Its not like we havent been over this half a dozen times already....


We have.

"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."

Oh wait. That was a progressive group.
Number of Tea Party groups rejected: 0
 
2013-05-15 12:43:10 PM

Cubicle Jockey: I'll admit that the profiling doesn't bother me. We have an actual, honest-to-god Tea Party caucus in Congress.


"All 66 former members of the Tea Party Caucus are members of the Republican Party. Three of them are part of the Republican leadership " -wiki
 
2013-05-15 12:44:58 PM

Warlordtrooper: I still don't understand what is there to be outraged about here....  Bush had the FBI infiltrate liberal anti-war groups and occupy protesters.  Why isn't anybody screaming about that.


I think you mean the IRS scrutinize LAWGs. Occupy wasn't there yet.
 
2013-05-15 12:45:19 PM

Bane of Broone: This. I am never for profiling


Why are you against profiling?
I think you need to hone your preference a bit more.

I am against profiling in matters the individual has no meaningful control over. Race, gender, disability, etc. In other words, most protected classes.
Choosing a name for your organization and seeking tax exempt status are not one of them. If you're a social welfare organization, don't expect "Tea Party Patriots Against Unjust Taxes" to win you any point with the IRS.
 
2013-05-15 12:47:17 PM

Witty_Retort: Warlordtrooper: I still don't understand what is there to be outraged about here....  Bush had the FBI infiltrate liberal anti-war groups and occupy protesters.  Why isn't anybody screaming about that.

I think you mean the IRS scrutinize LAWGs. Occupy wasn't there yet.


No, he's right about FBI infiltrators in anti-war groups. Occupy groups, too, and to a disgusting extent; we've dealt with infiltrators and provocateurs that were linked to the FBI and DHS as well as local law enforcement. The part he was wrong about was "Bush"; it should have been "the American government at all times".
 
2013-05-15 12:48:08 PM
And in other news, the DEA was accused of unfairly targeting groups that included "Motorcycle Club" and "1%er" in their name.
 
2013-05-15 12:50:09 PM
Oh Come ON!
 
2013-05-15 12:50:48 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Bane of Broone: This. I am never for profiling

Why are you against profiling?
I think you need to hone your preference a bit more.

I am against profiling in matters the individual has no meaningful control over. Race, gender, disability, etc. In other words, most protected classes.
Choosing a name for your organization and seeking tax exempt status are not one of them. If you're a social welfare organization, don't expect "Tea Party Patriots Against Unjust Taxes" to win you any point with the IRS.


Good call. I like your line of thinking better. I don't want to give personhood to anything other than people.
 
2013-05-15 12:51:31 PM

Witty_Retort: o5iiawah: cameroncrazy1984: Can you name one group that was denied tax-exempt status in all of this? One? And can you please explain why that is fascism?

It wasn't in denying any group tax exempt status, it is in creating time and paperwork barriers that no other group had to go through, based exclusively on the political leanings of the group.

Its not like we havent been over this half a dozen times already....

We have.

"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."

Oh wait. That was a progressive group.
Number of Tea Party groups rejected: 0


Its OK that Tea Party groups were targeted because hey they denied a liberal group tax exepmt
 
2013-05-15 12:51:32 PM
does anyone else feel like they are being forced to participate in the outrage over this non-issue?
I mean, just because someone is outraged doesn't mean i have to share that outrage.

I for one would like the IRS to make absolute positive decisions when deciding on tax exempt status requests & i think we can all agree there are people/organizations that take pride in gaming the system.

so how can i get upset when the system takes that into consideration?
 
2013-05-15 12:52:49 PM

trailerpimp: Fair tax anyone?


"Fair tax"?  Sure.

"Fair Tax"?  No thanks.  Hell, no.
 
2013-05-15 12:53:33 PM

Isitoveryet: does anyone else feel like they are being forced to participate in the outrage over this non-issue?
I mean, just because someone is outraged doesn't mean i have to share that outrage.

I for one would like the IRS to make absolute positive decisions when deciding on tax exempt status requests & i think we can all agree there are people/organizations that take pride in gaming the system.

so how can i get upset when the system takes that into consideration?


The right-wing is outraged, and so Very Serious People are outraged, and so you have to be outraged too. Just like ACORN and Shirley Sherrod, this is a Very Serious Issue.
 
2013-05-15 12:54:21 PM

FarkedOver: mistrmind: Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government. So big that he himself can no longer control it. In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader? (Answer: Not very, if at all). Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies. It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.

Are you really comparing Tea Party members to people that were persecuted by McCarthy?  Wow.....


The comparison to Senator McCarthy's actions is sufficient to identify the post as a "troll". Actual Tea Party members would not associate McCarthyism with unjust persecution, as they believe Senator McCarthy to be an unfairly maligned hero who fought to protect the United States of America from a very real and encroaching communist menace.
 
2013-05-15 12:54:43 PM
Read? Like as in Study it out and the Iraq and such?
 
2013-05-15 12:56:02 PM

cman: Its OK that Tea Party groups were targeted because hey they denied a liberal group tax exepmt


With the 25% retraction rate, it seems to have been a goo targeting.
The moral of the story is that 0 TEA Party groups were denied their exemption.
 
2013-05-15 12:57:15 PM
so the Tea Party people are to stupid to follow IRS regulations, maybe they should stick with keeping the government outta the medicare
 
2013-05-15 12:57:58 PM

Dimensio: FarkedOver: mistrmind: Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government. So big that he himself can no longer control it. In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader? (Answer: Not very, if at all). Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies. It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.

Are you really comparing Tea Party members to people that were persecuted by McCarthy?  Wow.....

The comparison to Senator McCarthy's actions is sufficient to identify the post as a "troll". Actual Tea Party members would not associate McCarthyism with unjust persecution, as they believe Senator McCarthy to be an unfairly maligned hero who fought to protect the United States of America from a very real and encroaching communist menace.


Build many strawmen?
 
2013-05-15 01:00:00 PM

Witty_Retort: cman: Its OK that Tea Party groups were targeted because hey they denied a liberal group tax exepmt

With the 25% retraction rate, it seems to have been a goo targeting.
The moral of the story is that 0 TEA Party groups were denied their exemption.


With the prison population being 38% black targeting people for their color has been a "goo" targeting.
The moral of the story: weed rules
 
2013-05-15 01:00:54 PM

Witty_Retort: cman: Its OK that Tea Party groups were targeted because hey they denied a liberal group tax exepmt

With the 25% retraction rate, it seems to have been a goo targeting.
The moral of the story is that 0 TEA Party groups were denied their exemption.

Bukkake?

 
2013-05-15 01:01:31 PM

cman: The moral of the story: weed rules


This explains 98% of your posts, actually.
 
2013-05-15 01:02:45 PM
TLDR;  I'll just get on the bandwagon.
 
2013-05-15 01:06:25 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Grungehamster: LasersHurt: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

People HAVE been admitting the IRS farked up. From day one that this broke.

Where is this fantasy land that some people live where everyone is brushing this under the rug and saying it's okay? There are so many people whining about it, it must be happening somewhere, right?

Is this one of those "I saw some idiot say it once therefore broadbrush giantstatement"?

A lot of people have taken a grumpy cat approach to the scandal of "well duh, everyone knows these groups are political, so I'm glad they did it" and either downplay or ignore that the guidelines these agents were using was discriminatory. The IRS higher ups saw employees use a standard that was biased against conservative groups, told them to knock it off, and never followed up to see if they changed the criteria (they didn't). This should lead to people being fired for poor management and failure to follow orders.

However, the biggest issue is that conservative groups are conflating non-profit applications with tax returns and implying people ended up getting audited for their political beliefs instead of filing additional paperwork detailing the goals of their organization.

The next big thing is Boehner is out there now demanding jail time for those involved in this. Sorry, but if nobody went to jail over the Pigford snafu I highly doubt increased scrutiny of applications that never actually rejected anyone based on the requirements will result in people behind bars.

Just send this questionnaire to everybody on the future. It shouldn't be easy to become tax exempt for anybody.


From what I've seen it wasn't even a standardized form: some got requests for membership information, others were asked to list and rank their organization's goals from most to least important, and some were explicitly asked if they or their members had any relationship with other similarly named organizations.

That is the most legitimate claim to harassment these groups have: instead of the IRS asking them "produce x, y, and z for approval" they would ask for more information in an arbitrary manner.

This is a legitimate case where a lack of oversight resulted in a real fustercluck and greatly undermined the IRS' mission.
 
2013-05-15 01:06:28 PM

cman: Witty_Retort: cman: Its OK that Tea Party groups were targeted because hey they denied a liberal group tax exepmt

With the 25% retraction rate, it seems to have been a goo targeting.
The moral of the story is that 0 TEA Party groups were denied their exemption.

With the prison population being 38% black targeting people for their color has been a "goo" targeting.
The moral of the story: weed rules


I didn't make fun of your spelling of "exepmt" so you could've let my good go on by.
Your prison comparison doesn't work.
 
2013-05-15 01:06:58 PM
Before you jump on the "OMG IRS/BENGHAZI/OBAMA" scandal bandwagon, read the Inspector General's report on the IRS

i41.tinypic.com

Real 'mericans don't read.
 
2013-05-15 01:08:25 PM

dennysgod: Before you jump on the "OMG IRS/BENGHAZI/OBAMA" scandal bandwagon, read the Inspector General's report on the IRS

[i41.tinypic.com image 550x550]

Real 'mericans don't read.


Damn straight!

cdn.hsmemes.com
 
2013-05-15 01:09:29 PM

Witty_Retort: cman: Witty_Retort: cman: Its OK that Tea Party groups were targeted because hey they denied a liberal group tax exepmt

With the 25% retraction rate, it seems to have been a goo targeting.
The moral of the story is that 0 TEA Party groups were denied their exemption.

With the prison population being 38% black targeting people for their color has been a "goo" targeting.
The moral of the story: weed rules

I didn't make fun of your spelling of "exepmt" so you could've let my good go on by.
Your prison comparison doesn't work.


You should have made fun of me when you had the chance. This is Fark. We berate each other for anything less than perfection.

And, if you were wondering, I know the prison comparison doesnt work. I thought the tone of the post distinctively marked it as a joke post. I guess I was wrong.
 
Displayed 50 of 172 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report