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.

(USA Today)   While the IRS central scrutinizer was singling out right-wing groups for nitpicking, they were waving through liberal groups' applications. In other news, Tea Party changes its name to Mother Gaia's Nuanced Vegans for Appeasement   (usatoday.com) divider line 321
    More: Followup, Champaign Tea Party, IRS, right-wing, appeasement, Florida Legislature  
•       •       •

904 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2013 at 10:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-15 10:57:14 AM
Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?
 
2013-05-15 10:58:23 AM
The IRS gives churches a free pass.  Where is the outrage regarding this?
 
2013-05-15 10:59:36 AM
"Perhaps dozens?"

One of them took nine months?

Wow, they really expedited anything liberal and left all Tea Party applications languishing. Not.
 
2013-05-15 11:00:21 AM
If the requirement for tax-free status is being a non-profit, non-political group working for social justice, and you don't have unlimited time or funds, which of the following would you look at more closely:

"Mother Gaia's Nuanced Vegans for Appeasement"

or

"Patriotic Tea Party Patriots for Taking Our Country Back"?
 
2013-05-15 11:01:43 AM

skozlaw: Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?


Oh, it's a thing. A pretty bad thing. Take heart, though, Obama is reacting appropriately, recognizing that it is indeed a thing.
 
2013-05-15 11:02:31 AM
Stick closer to church-oriented social activities.
 
2013-05-15 11:02:42 AM
Still trying to get my tax-free status for "Citizens for Circumnavigating Election Laws".
 
2013-05-15 11:03:30 AM
See, it really undermines my own personal concern for this scandal when apples and oranges are compared.  Tea party groups were put to particular scrutiny in Ohio, DC, and California.  None of the examples in the article are from those regions.

It wasn't a nationwide scandal, and pretending it was seriously undermines the credibility of the concerns.  It just makes it look like they're trying to blame Obama, instead of those at fault.
 
2013-05-15 11:05:23 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: "Perhaps dozens?"


Yeah, that was the line that caught my eye, too. Doesn't really fill me with confidence.

By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.
 
2013-05-15 11:05:46 AM
Liberal groups are simply more honest, so the paperwork moved quicker.
 
2013-05-15 11:05:55 AM
getting my laughs out of the way at what is sure to be an epic liberal ass hurty thread that basically boils down to: when my guy does it, it's fine & i just mock anyone who says otherwise or feign disinterest.

should be a blast
 
2013-05-15 11:06:33 AM
Folks at the IRS thought Tea Party groups would be likely tax dodgers? I wonder why.

Profiling is only approved for use against the poors.
 
2013-05-15 11:06:33 AM
One has a "taxed enough already" theme and the other type thinks everyone should pay their fair share.  Wonder which one would more likely being trying to cheat the government out of tax payments.

Doesn't change the fact the the IRS has to be independent of the Executive branch.

Also doesn't change the fact that the GOP won't care and will send it's hatchet Congress Critters out to lie through their teeth about how this is all Obama and add it to the long list of impeachment offenses.
 
2013-05-15 11:06:56 AM
Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.
 
2013-05-15 11:07:05 AM
userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2013-05-15 11:07:26 AM

inner ted: getting my laughs out of the way at what is sure to be an epic liberal ass hurty thread that basically boils down to: when my guy does it, it's fine & i just mock anyone who says otherwise or feign disinterest.

should be a blast


Because all accusations are equally valid and true, and no scrutiny should be applied?
 
2013-05-15 11:07:50 AM
Is IRS a -ghazi yet?

Is Benghazi a -ghazi yet?

Studying it out with our cocks out (and in our hands). -The GOP
 
2013-05-15 11:07:50 AM

ikanreed: See, it really undermines my own personal concern for this scandal when apples and oranges are compared.  Tea party groups were put to particular scrutiny in Ohio, DC, and California.  None of the examples in the article are from those regions.

It wasn't a nationwide scandal, and pretending it was seriously undermines the credibility of the concerns.  It just makes it look like they're trying to blame Obama, instead of those at fault.


From what I've been hearing on the news, those offices are where they process the applications. These offices often serve the entire country with one function, rather than performing many functions for one region. For example, even though I drive past the IRS' HQ on my way home from work every day, I mail my Federal return to Massachusetts.
 
2013-05-15 11:08:04 AM

ikanreed: See, it really undermines my own personal concern for this scandal when apples and oranges are compared.  Tea party groups were put to particular scrutiny in Ohio, DC, and California.  None of the examples in the article are from those regions.

It wasn't a nationwide scandal, and pretending it was seriously undermines the credibility of the concerns.  It just makes it look like they're trying to blame Obama, instead of those at fault.


All applications were processed in Cleveland
 
2013-05-15 11:08:52 AM
I don't think the IRS was too hard on the TP groups.  They were too easy on the other groups.

The vast majority of these groups deserve nothing in tax breaks, regardless of ideology.
 
2013-05-15 11:09:07 AM

skozlaw: Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?


Being treated differently by a government entity because of your speech?  Nah, not a thing to be concerned with at all.  Move along citizen.
 
2013-05-15 11:09:11 AM

inner ted: getting my laughs out of the way at what is sure to be an epic liberal ass hurty thread that basically boils down to: when my guy does it, it's fine & i just mock anyone who says otherwise or feign disinterest.

should be a blast


Or, you might learn that the poor widdle opwessed Tea-per Tantrum Party groups weren't even half of those audited by the IRS, and the conservatives -- *surprise* -- are just trying to play victim to rack up sympathy points with the idiot voters.

But, I see you've invested heavily in this pity party, and I'd hate to bring it down with something like the truth. Please, put that crown of thorns back on, and don't take those nails out of your feet on my account.
 
2013-05-15 11:09:14 AM
Ree-hee-publicans
Have messed my mind up
But I still love them
But I still love them.....
 
2013-05-15 11:09:41 AM
the IRS central scruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuutinizer

The WHITE ZONE is for loading
and UNLOADING ONLY
SO if you got to LOAD
or UNLOAD
go to the WHITE ZONE
you'll LOVE it
it's a WAY OF LIFE
 
2013-05-15 11:09:53 AM

ExpressPork: skozlaw: Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?

Being treated differently by a government entity because of your speech?  Nah, not a thing to be concerned with at all.  Move along citizen.


You're right - no tax exempt status for anyone.
 
2013-05-15 11:10:37 AM
Instead of updating the 50-year-old IRS regulations regarding how to tell whether a social welfare group is legit or a sham, Congress and the IRS's appointed leaders let a completely new campaign finance environment post-Citizens United v. FEC render those regulations completely irrelevant.
 
2013-05-15 11:10:43 AM

BMulligan: Obama's Reptiloid Master: "Perhaps dozens?"

Yeah, that was the line that caught my eye, too. Doesn't really fill me with confidence.

By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.


Umm. Thank you sequester?
 
2013-05-15 11:10:47 AM
Due to budget cuts and just sheer numbers, the IRS has come up with a series of markers that help determine who may be fudging numbers.
If you claim the home office deduction, that really pumps up your likelihood of a second look.
Could someone have decided that putting TEA Party in your title increases the chances you are a cheat? With the 25% rejection rate, it seems so.

The real scandal is that all of those 540(c)'s (or whatever they are) aren't investigated. Karl Rove's, Obama's, and many more of those should exist.
 
2013-05-15 11:11:00 AM

ikanreed: It wasn't a nationwide scandal, and pretending it was seriously undermines the credibility of the concerns.


When have Republicans been concerned about credibility?
 
2013-05-15 11:11:04 AM

BMulligan: By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.



You know how that thread's going to develop -- they'll claim credit for all the good outcomes, and pull an alternate fictional history out of their ass where an unchecked Obama would have ruined everything.
 
2013-05-15 11:11:26 AM
I swear I read the headline as "Nuanced Vaginas."
 
2013-05-15 11:11:48 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: skozlaw: Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?

Oh, it's a thing. A pretty bad thing


LOLWUT
 
2013-05-15 11:12:09 AM

ExpressPork: skozlaw: Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?

Being treated differently by a government entity because of your speech?  Nah, not a thing to be concerned with at all.  Move along citizen.


Try again.  Being treated differently by a government entity because your speech indicates that you are likely to not abide by the laws the government entity is tasked with enforcing?  There, nothing to be concerned with at all. Move along, patriot derper.
 
2013-05-15 11:12:27 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: BMulligan: Obama's Reptiloid Master: "Perhaps dozens?"

Yeah, that was the line that caught my eye, too. Doesn't really fill me with confidence.

By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.

Umm. Thank you sequester?


I'm pretty sure the CBO report said that it was because of a stronger-than-expected economy that led to larger-than-expected federal revenues. You want to make the argument that the sequester strengthened the economy, be my guest.
 
2013-05-15 11:12:30 AM

ikanreed: See, it really undermines my own personal concern for this scandal when apples and oranges are compared.  Tea party groups were put to particular scrutiny in Ohio, DC, and California.  None of the examples in the article are from those regions.

It wasn't a nationwide scandal, and pretending it was seriously undermines the credibility of the concerns.  It just makes it look like they're trying to blame Obama, instead of those at fault.


That's what this is, another attempt to create some bullshiat "scandal" out of nothing. It's like the WWF in the 1980s, throw concepts at the wall and see what sticks. That's why we had ULTIMATE WARRIOR and not Duke "The Dumpster" as the main challenger for Hogan. Or the reason Isaac Yakem, DDS never took off as the challenger for the belt.

The GOP is basically Vince McMahon right now in 1993. The is the Friar Ferguson stage of scandal right now.

cdn.bleacherreport.net

Or maybe the Bastion Booger of Scandals.

cdn.bleacherreport.net

If they are lucky, the next "scandal" will be like "The Booty Man" and shake it's rump at Obama's presidency

cdn.bleacherreport.net
 
2013-05-15 11:13:01 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I don't think the IRS was too hard on the TP groups.  They were too easy on the other groups.


Precisely.
 
2013-05-15 11:13:16 AM

Muta: The IRS gives churches a free pass.  Where is the outrage regarding this?


This. If it really was about targeting conservative groups the IRS would have biatch slapped the 1100 pastors who went out of their way to denounce Obama from the pulpit and dared them to yank their status.
 
2013-05-15 11:14:19 AM

inner ted: getting my laughs out of the way at what is sure to be an epic liberal ass hurty thread that basically boils down to: when my guy does it, it's fine & i just mock anyone who says otherwise or feign disinterest.

should be a blast


SPOT ON! And so predictable
Should be fun watching it too...
// popcorn and a drink
 
2013-05-15 11:15:38 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I don't think the IRS was too hard on the TP groups.  They were too easy on the other groups.

The vast majority of these groups deserve nothing in tax breaks, regardless of ideology.


You are probably right from a conceptual standpoint, but the law is the law, and whether they were "too hard" on conservative groups or "too easy" on liberal groups it's still egregiously discriminatory.

My question is how much tax revenue are we talking here? Most of these groups are 501(c)4s, donations to which aren't tax deductible. What taxes are they avoiding? Income taxes on interest from their bank accounts? Property taxes on their owned premises? What?
 
2013-05-15 11:16:58 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Liberal groups are simply more honest, so the paperwork moved quicker.


I was reading complaints from Teabaggers that the form they had to fill out had 55 questions.  Can you imagine having to answer a whole 55 questions just to gain tax free status for your organization?

We all know liberals are smarter than conservatives.  The issue could be as simple as liberals were about to complete the forms properly.
 
2013-05-15 11:17:29 AM

phaseolus: BMulligan: By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.


You know how that thread's going to develop -- they'll claim credit for all the good outcomes, and pull an alternate fictional history out of their ass where an unchecked Obama would have ruined everything.


No, that's not possible. I'm sure that none of the honorable conservatives around here would ever...

Debeo Summa Credo: Umm. Thank you sequester?


Never mind.
 
2013-05-15 11:17:53 AM
They were also looking at key words regardless of affiliation. If you were a group without "tea party" or "patriot" in your name them I'm sure they weren't flagged either.
 
2013-05-15 11:18:44 AM

Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.


I wish I had the physical ability you have to carry that cross.  You must be muscled like Conan.
 
2013-05-15 11:19:15 AM

Muta: I was reading complaints from Teabaggers that the form they had to fill out had 55 questions. Can you imagine having to answer a whole 55 questions just to gain tax free status for your organization?


Given the fervent opposition to reading the Affordable Care Act, since it's so long (I mean, it didn't have the breezy fun that all of Ayn Rand's literature exudes), the GOP needs to add to its agenda next time the following: "Reading's hard."
 
2013-05-15 11:19:55 AM
Remember them, the Christian Coalition lost its tax-exempt status in 49 states. The Tea Party is its corporate reincarnation.

Tax exemption for these groups is a shell game played by con men. Just rename the full group, rince and repeat.
 
2013-05-15 11:19:57 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: skozlaw: Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?

Oh, it's a thing. A pretty bad thing. Take heart, though, Obama is reacting appropriately, recognizing that it is indeed a thing.


Where would you place it on the scandal scale where Iran-Contra is a gnat-buzzing annoyance and Benghazi is a giant asteroid striking the earth?
 
2013-05-15 11:21:04 AM
Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents; that's what this issue boils down to.

Unfortunately, an enormous unethical "cheating" culture has enveloped the current "command economy" government regime, and there is now an enormous backlash that is beginning to seek out balance between the two economic polarities. The IRS effectively altered election results through harassment methods. IRS "operatives," so to speak, working directly in tacit agreement with the Obama campaign, worked as thoroughly as possible (while on taxpayers' dimes) to divert resources and money away from conservative efforts to encourage citizens for the conservative causes and candidates. There's really no two ways about it.  that's what was done. End of story.
 
2013-05-15 11:21:22 AM

I_C_Weener: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

I wish I had the physical ability you have to carry that cross.  You must be muscled like Conan.


Dear Lord, you don't even know what it means to "carry that cross".  Did Epoch indicate that he was being persecuted?  No.  He was indicating that conservatives are primarily evil assholes hell-bent on destroying this country to elevate their theocratic platform.
 
2013-05-15 11:21:40 AM

Muta: The IRS gives churches a free pass.  Where is the outrage regarding this?


You mean like when they give unions a free pass?
 
2013-05-15 11:22:30 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Lionel Mandrake: I don't think the IRS was too hard on the TP groups.  They were too easy on the other groups.

The vast majority of these groups deserve nothing in tax breaks, regardless of ideology.

You are probably right from a conceptual standpoint, but the law is the law, and whether they were "too hard" on conservative groups or "too easy" on liberal groups it's still egregiously discriminatory.

My question is how much tax revenue are we talking here? Most of these groups are 501(c)4s, donations to which aren't tax deductible. What taxes are they avoiding? Income taxes on interest from their bank accounts? Property taxes on their owned premises? What?


I think the real goal is being able to hide their donor's information.
 
2013-05-15 11:22:55 AM
I can't think of any reason that the IRS might look at a sudden influx of dozens of similar groups to make sure they weren't fraudulently claiming tax exemptions.

None at all.
 
2013-05-15 11:23:22 AM
So to recap, here's the "scandals" plaguing Obama:

There was an attack on a consulate that resulted in embassy staff and an ambassador being murdered, but the attack happened so fast and in such a remote location that no reactive measures could be taken, prompting us to have a frank talk about security needs.

The DOJ issued perfectly legal process to obtain journalistic records to find the identity of a leak that could develop into a threat to national security, promoting the Fourth Estate to piss themselves in fear of tyranny and the rest of the country to shrug and say, "leaks are maybe not always so good?"

And finally, the IRS may have singled out an indeterminate number of groups with "tea party" in the name for increased scrutiny as to their 501(c)(4) applications but hasn't denied any of them, and may have not taken a serious enough look at some applications by progressive groups, an act which in no way could be attributed to the President EVEN IF it is determined to be improper (which no one should concede).

And the last time we had a Democratic president, his big "scandal" was lying about his side piece.

Contrast that with the "scandals" of our past few Republican presidents, such as lying to start a war, deliberately ignoring intelligence about terrorists seeking to attack the US because it detracted from the boogeyman they really wanted to get, selling weapons to a nation holding our embassy staff hostage to finance right-wing death squads in Latin America, delaying the release of hostages to win an election, etc.

Tell me again why we aren't burning down every GOP headquarters and tarring and feathering every last R for treason?
 
2013-05-15 11:23:27 AM

Muta: The IRS gives churches a free pass.  Where is the outrage regarding this?


Democratic politicians are scared shiatless of being accused of being liberal. GOP politicians are not scared of being called conservative. Outrage occurs accordingly.
 
2013-05-15 11:23:59 AM

ikanreed: It just makes it look like they're trying to blame Obama, instead of those at fault.


They could want to keep the "scandals" going in the hopes that at some point Obama tells someone to be with his wife while she gives birth to their child instead of answering a congressional questionaire.  When that happens, Obama is hindering Congress and part of the cover up.
 
2013-05-15 11:24:02 AM
I'm glad the IRS is getting the magnifying glass.  They've needed to be brought down a peg or two for YEARS.  And I'm not talking Obama years, either.  I have seen first hand just how scuzzy the IRS is:  Reneging on contractual payments with taxpayers, contacting and scaring the beejeezus out of taxpayers for additional monies that are not owed (and are KNOWN to not be owed), unilaterally deciding the amount of allowances you may take on your W-4 regardless of actual dependents, etc.

I hope they investigate every aspect of the IRS, not just their approval of tax exempt status for organizations.  This has nothing to do with who is president, and everything to do with the IRS's imperious nature.
 
2013-05-15 11:24:32 AM

Scerpes: Muta: The IRS gives churches a free pass.  Where is the outrage regarding this?

You mean like when they give unions a free pass?


Citation needed.
 
2013-05-15 11:24:53 AM

Serious Black: Debeo Summa Credo: BMulligan: Obama's Reptiloid Master: "Perhaps dozens?"

Yeah, that was the line that caught my eye, too. Doesn't really fill me with confidence.

By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.

Umm. Thank you sequester?

I'm pretty sure the CBO report said that it was because of a stronger-than-expected economy that led to larger-than-expected federal revenues. You want to make the argument that the sequester strengthened the economy, be my guest.


The link that BMulligan included referred to "tax increases and cuts in domestic and military programs".

But you are correct that the improving economy is certainly a significant contributor.
 
2013-05-15 11:25:11 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: BMulligan: Obama's Reptiloid Master: "Perhaps dozens?"

Yeah, that was the line that caught my eye, too. Doesn't really fill me with confidence.

By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.

Umm. Thank you sequester?


So since that was Obama's idea, are you gonna give him credit for that or no?
 
2013-05-15 11:26:08 AM

lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents; that's what this issue boils down to.

Unfortunately, an enormous unethical "cheating" culture has enveloped the current "command economy" government regime, and there is now an enormous backlash that is beginning to seek out balance between the two economic polarities. The IRS effectively altered election results through harassment methods. IRS "operatives," so to speak, working directly in tacit agreement with the Obama campaign, worked as thoroughly as possible (while on taxpayers' dimes) to divert resources and money away from conservative efforts to encourage citizens for the conservative causes and candidates. There's really no two ways about it.  that's what was done. End of story.


Someone forgot to take his medications this morning.
 
2013-05-15 11:26:49 AM
So did TFA provide any examples of these dozens upon dozens of "liberal" groups that were "waved through" ? No?

Huh.
 
2013-05-15 11:27:03 AM

BMulligan: Obama's Reptiloid Master: "Perhaps dozens?"

Yeah, that was the line that caught my eye, too. Doesn't really fill me with confidence.

By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.


Funny how the liberal media isn't making a big deal out of that, isn't it.
 
2013-05-15 11:27:14 AM
Why is it wrong for the IRS to give an extra look at organizations, whose tag line is, NO TAXES, and seeking to not pay taxes?
 
2013-05-15 11:27:39 AM

cameroncrazy1984: So did TFA provide any examples of these dozens upon dozens of "liberal" groups that were "waved through" ? No?

Huh.


One of them took NINE MONTHS. Look at that speed. Why, they barely had to file anything.
 
2013-05-15 11:27:43 AM

BMulligan: phaseolus: BMulligan: By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.


You know how that thread's going to develop -- they'll claim credit for all the good outcomes, and pull an alternate fictional history out of their ass where an unchecked Obama would have ruined everything.

No, that's not possible. I'm sure that none of the honorable conservatives around here would ever...

Debeo Summa Credo: Umm. Thank you sequester?

Never mind.


The link you posted referred to how successful washington has been in reducing the deficit due to tax increases and spending cuts.

Do you honestly not think that the sequester has reduced the deficit?
 
2013-05-15 11:28:20 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Lionel Mandrake: I don't think the IRS was too hard on the TP groups.  They were too easy on the other groups.

The vast majority of these groups deserve nothing in tax breaks, regardless of ideology.

You are probably right from a conceptual standpoint, but the law is the law, and whether they were "too hard" on conservative groups or "too easy" on liberal groups it's still egregiously discriminatory.

My question is how much tax revenue are we talking here? Most of these groups are 501(c)4s, donations to which aren't tax deductible. What taxes are they avoiding? Income taxes on interest from their bank accounts? Property taxes on their owned premises? What?


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 11:28:45 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: BMulligan: phaseolus: BMulligan: By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.


You know how that thread's going to develop -- they'll claim credit for all the good outcomes, and pull an alternate fictional history out of their ass where an unchecked Obama would have ruined everything.

No, that's not possible. I'm sure that none of the honorable conservatives around here would ever...

Debeo Summa Credo: Umm. Thank you sequester?

Never mind.

The link you posted referred to how successful washington has been in reducing the deficit due to tax increases and spending cuts.

Do you honestly not think that the sequester has reduced the deficit?


The sequeter is what, $85B? How much has the deficit been reduced?
 
2013-05-15 11:29:09 AM

skozlaw: Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?


According to Farbongo it is a thing. So yea, you might want to read a newspaper or something and not get all your news from FARK.
 
2013-05-15 11:29:16 AM

coeyagi: I_C_Weener: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

I wish I had the physical ability you have to carry that cross.  You must be muscled like Conan.

Dear Lord, you don't even know what it means to "carry that cross".  Did Epoch indicate that he was being persecuted?  No.  He was indicating that conservatives are primarily evil assholes hell-bent on destroying this country to elevate their theocratic platform.


You're right.  I should have said "carrying a chip on his shoulder the size of Lady Gaga's testicles."
 
2013-05-15 11:29:18 AM

Fifi Le Pew: I'm glad the IRS is getting the magnifying glass.  They've needed to be brought down a peg or two for YEARS.  And I'm not talking Obama years, either.  I have seen first hand just how scuzzy the IRS is:  Reneging on contractual payments with taxpayers, contacting and scaring the beejeezus out of taxpayers for additional monies that are not owed (and are KNOWN to not be owed), unilaterally deciding the amount of allowances you may take on your W-4 regardless of actual dependents, etc.

I hope they investigate every aspect of the IRS, not just their approval of tax exempt status for organizations.  This has nothing to do with who is president, and everything to do with the IRS's imperious nature.


That's weird. Somehow all of your citations seem to have disappeared.
 
2013-05-15 11:29:35 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: cameroncrazy1984: So did TFA provide any examples of these dozens upon dozens of "liberal" groups that were "waved through" ? No?

Huh.

One of them took NINE MONTHS. Look at that speed. Why, they barely had to file anything.


Wow! That is some special treatment there! Only 9 months?! Obama better get on this quick! This is like 10 Benghazis!
 
2013-05-15 11:29:36 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Lionel Mandrake: I don't think the IRS was too hard on the TP groups.  They were too easy on the other groups.

The vast majority of these groups deserve nothing in tax breaks, regardless of ideology.

You are probably right from a conceptual standpoint, but the law is the law, and whether they were "too hard" on conservative groups or "too easy" on liberal groups it's still egregiously discriminatory.

My question is how much tax revenue are we talking here? Most of these groups are 501(c)4s, donations to which aren't tax deductible. What taxes are they avoiding? Income taxes on interest from their bank accounts? Property taxes on their owned premises? What?


I agree.  But I hope this mess leads to a reevaluation of of the whole process.
 
2013-05-15 11:30:14 AM

Danger Mouse: skozlaw: Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?

According to Farbongo it is a thing. So yea, you might want to read a newspaper or something and not get all your news from FARK.


According to "farbongo," if it IS a thing, he'll investigate it. It's not looking like it's a thing yet.
 
2013-05-15 11:31:31 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: BMulligan: phaseolus: BMulligan: By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.


You know how that thread's going to develop -- they'll claim credit for all the good outcomes, and pull an alternate fictional history out of their ass where an unchecked Obama would have ruined everything.

No, that's not possible. I'm sure that none of the honorable conservatives around here would ever...

Debeo Summa Credo: Umm. Thank you sequester?

Never mind.

The link you posted referred to how successful washington has been in reducing the deficit due to tax increases and spending cuts.

Do you honestly not think that the sequester has reduced the deficit?


Not during the time period covered by the CBO analysis.
 
2013-05-15 11:31:39 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Obama's Reptiloid Master: cameroncrazy1984: So did TFA provide any examples of these dozens upon dozens of "liberal" groups that were "waved through" ? No?

Huh.

One of them took NINE MONTHS. Look at that speed. Why, they barely had to file anything.

Wow! That is some special treatment there! Only 9 months?! Obama better get on this quick! This is like 10 Benghazis!


A whole decabenghazi? Or is that too eurosocialist metric-y? Did I just get gay married to Karl Marx?
 
2013-05-15 11:31:51 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: BMulligan: Obama's Reptiloid Master: "Perhaps dozens?"

Yeah, that was the line that caught my eye, too. Doesn't really fill me with confidence.

By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.

Umm. Thank you sequester?

So since that was Obama's idea, are you gonna give him credit for that or no?


It's Obama's idea now? LOL!! Every day some farklib was whining about how the sequester was going to ruin the economy and the austerity-minded GOP was to blame, and now that te sequester is actually reducing the deficit Obama is the one who gets the credit?

Fine. Good job Obama. Keep it up. More spending cuts please.
 
2013-05-15 11:33:09 AM

I_C_Weener: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

I wish I had the physical ability you have to carry that cross.  You must be muscled like Conan.


You have no idea. I'm constantly swarmed by attractive, single women. The best is when I put on my three wolves howling at the moon t-shirt - oh man, so much instant tail.

/no seriously
//teahadists are a virulent cancer
 
2013-05-15 11:33:24 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Debeo Summa Credo: Lionel Mandrake: I don't think the IRS was too hard on the TP groups.  They were too easy on the other groups.

The vast majority of these groups deserve nothing in tax breaks, regardless of ideology.

You are probably right from a conceptual standpoint, but the law is the law, and whether they were "too hard" on conservative groups or "too easy" on liberal groups it's still egregiously discriminatory.

My question is how much tax revenue are we talking here? Most of these groups are 501(c)4s, donations to which aren't tax deductible. What taxes are they avoiding? Income taxes on interest from their bank accounts? Property taxes on their owned premises? What?

I agree.  But I hope this mess leads to a reevaluation of of the whole process.


That would sure be nice.  I agree with what the IRS did, placing more scrutiny on semi-political groups, but disagree with the way in which they did it, basically a key-word search.  We don't tolerate racial profiling, why should we tolerate political profiling?
 
2013-05-15 11:33:30 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: It's Obama's idea now?


Actually, yeah. The sequester was Obama's idea to avoid the debt ceiling idiocy. Study it out.
 
2013-05-15 11:33:30 AM

LasersHurt: inner ted: getting my laughs out of the way at what is sure to be an epic liberal ass hurty thread that basically boils down to: when my guy does it, it's fine & i just mock anyone who says otherwise or feign disinterest.

should be a blast

Because all accusations are equally valid and true, and no scrutiny should be applied?


EyeballKid: inner ted: getting my laughs out of the way at what is sure to be an epic liberal ass hurty thread that basically boils down to: when my guy does it, it's fine & i just mock anyone who says otherwise or feign disinterest.

should be a blast

Or, you might learn that the poor widdle opwessed Tea-per Tantrum Party groups weren't even half of those audited by the IRS, and the conservatives -- *surprise* -- are just trying to play victim to rack up sympathy points with the idiot voters.

But, I see you've invested heavily in this pity party, and I'd hate to bring it down with something like the truth. Please, put that crown of thorns back on, and don't take those nails out of your feet on my account.


so the IRS is apologizing for nothing then?
 
2013-05-15 11:33:39 AM

BMulligan: Debeo Summa Credo: BMulligan: phaseolus: BMulligan: By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.


You know how that thread's going to develop -- they'll claim credit for all the good outcomes, and pull an alternate fictional history out of their ass where an unchecked Obama would have ruined everything.

No, that's not possible. I'm sure that none of the honorable conservatives around here would ever...

Debeo Summa Credo: Umm. Thank you sequester?

Never mind.

The link you posted referred to how successful washington has been in reducing the deficit due to tax increases and spending cuts.

Do you honestly not think that the sequester has reduced the deficit?

Not during the time period covered by the CBO analysis.


The CBO projected deficit for the 2013 fiscal year that ends sept. 30? You don't think the spending cuts factored into that?
 
2013-05-15 11:34:03 AM

Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.


Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.
 
2013-05-15 11:34:07 AM

Mjeck: Why is it wrong for the IRS to give an extra look at organizations, whose tag line is, NO TAXES, and seeking to not pay taxes?


No taxes?  Got a citation for that?

And why should they be subjected to any further scrutiny than any group seeking any tax change, including increases in taxes on the wealthy?  This is nothing more than a governmental agency attacking those whose ideology it disagrees with.  That's a huge problem.  It's offensive and probably violates the First Amendment.  Unless you're ok with the FBI locking liberals up simply because they're liberals.
 
2013-05-15 11:34:11 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Obama's Reptiloid Master: cameroncrazy1984: So did TFA provide any examples of these dozens upon dozens of "liberal" groups that were "waved through" ? No?

Huh.

One of them took NINE MONTHS. Look at that speed. Why, they barely had to file anything.

Wow! That is some special treatment there! Only 9 months?! Obama better get on this quick! This is like 10 Benghazis!


Well, you libs probably don't know this, but it takes 9 months to make a baby. Clearly, the IRS was sending a message to these liberal groups - you are loved and wanted, like a Republican's child.
 
2013-05-15 11:34:15 AM

Scerpes: Muta: The IRS gives churches a free pass. Where is the outrage regarding this?

You mean like when they give unions a free pass?


The same could be said for 501c 6 organizations.  Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues.

Why are professional football leagues tax exempt? 

The US Chamber of Commerce is political.  Why are they exempt?


One this this "scandal" did was open my eyes to how big of a scam 501c organizations are.
 
2013-05-15 11:34:33 AM

Gonz: If the requirement for tax-free status is being a non-profit, non-political group working for social justice,


and if it is not, then what?

do you think that MoveOn is a non-political group?
or OWS?

Since when is fixing the country so more people can get jobs not social justice?
 
2013-05-15 11:34:53 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: BMulligan: phaseolus: BMulligan: By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.


You know how that thread's going to develop -- they'll claim credit for all the good outcomes, and pull an alternate fictional history out of their ass where an unchecked Obama would have ruined everything.

No, that's not possible. I'm sure that none of the honorable conservatives around here would ever...

Debeo Summa Credo: Umm. Thank you sequester?

Never mind.

The link you posted referred to how successful washington has been in reducing the deficit due to tax increases and spending cuts.

Do you honestly not think that the sequester has reduced the deficit?


From that link:

" The $200 billion reduction to the estimated deficit comes not from the $85 billion in mandatory cuts known as sequestration, nor from the package of tax increases that Congress passed this winter to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. The office had already incorporated those policy changes into its February forecasts.

Rather, it comes from higher-than-expected tax payments from businesses and individuals, as well as an increase in payments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance companies the government took over as part of the wave of bailouts thrust upon Washington in the darkest days of the financial crisis.
 "
 
2013-05-15 11:35:18 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: The CBO projected deficit for the 2013 fiscal year that ends sept. 30? You don't think the spending cuts factored into that?


Oh, now it just "factored in"? Before it was "thanks sequester!" now it's "it factored in"

Keep movin them goalposts!
 
2013-05-15 11:36:08 AM

Scerpes: Unless you're ok with the FBI locking liberals up simply because they're liberals.


Asking to see if your TEA Party group is a social welfare group rather than a political support group is now exactly the same as the FBI locking up liberals.

You've got to be joking.
 
2013-05-15 11:36:13 AM

inner ted: so the IRS is apologizing for nothing then?


I don't know what you mean. The targeting of conservative groups was bad, and most people (including most liberals) seem to admit that.

That does not automatically lend validity to this article, with these new claims.
 
2013-05-15 11:36:37 AM

lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents; that's what this issue boils down to.

Unfortunately, an enormous unethical "cheating" culture has enveloped the current "command economy" government regime, and there is now an enormous backlash that is beginning to seek out balance between the two economic polarities. The IRS effectively altered election results through harassment methods. IRS "operatives," so to speak, working directly in tacit agreement with the Obama campaign, worked as thoroughly as possible (while on taxpayers' dimes) to divert resources and money away from conservative efforts to encourage citizens for the conservative causes and candidates. There's really no two ways about it.  that's what was done. End of story.


i159.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-15 11:36:48 AM

SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.


The 60s were 50 years ago. Let it go.
 
2013-05-15 11:36:56 AM

Fart_Machine: Scerpes: Muta: The IRS gives churches a free pass. Where is the outrage regarding this?

You mean like when they give unions a free pass?

Citation needed.


He's right.  Unions are tax exempt as 501c5 organizations.
 
2013-05-15 11:37:26 AM

coeyagi: Try again.  Being treated differently by a government entity because your speech indicates that you are likely to not abide by the laws the government entity is tasked with enforcing?  There, nothing to be concerned with at all. Move along, patriot derper.


So if I see a brown guy with a big mustache who doesnt speak English it makes sense to ask for his ID?  Good to know.

Just to be clear, I'm libertarian so I don't agree with my above statement.  I'm just pointing out your liberal hypocrisy.  You see, because the brown guy who doesn't speak English is more likely to be an illeg-ahem undocumented citizen.  The IRS' actions are ethically reprehensible and go against everything this country is founded upon.
 
2013-05-15 11:38:09 AM

SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.


Protip: OWS weren't viking raiders.

Teahadists like to stick with mass shootings. Or flying planes into buildings. (no, not that building)
 
2013-05-15 11:40:14 AM

Tomahawk513: That would sure be nice. I agree with what the IRS did, placing more scrutiny on semi-political groups, but disagree with the way in which they did it, basically a key-word search. We don't tolerate racial profiling, why should we tolerate political profiling?


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% rejection (or 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 11:40:21 AM

Scerpes: Mjeck: Why is it wrong for the IRS to give an extra look at organizations, whose tag line is, NO TAXES, and seeking to not pay taxes?

No taxes?  Got a citation for that?

And why should they be subjected to any further scrutiny than any group seeking any tax change, including increases in taxes on the wealthy?  This is nothing more than a governmental agency attacking those whose ideology it disagrees with.  That's a huge problem.  It's offensive and probably violates the First Amendment.  Unless you're ok with the FBI locking liberals up simply because they're liberals.


Citation... TEA PARTY, as in the Boston TEA PARTY, a historical protest on taxes.

Is it wrong to give an extra look? I seem to remember a long time ago, around the 90's, some guy was handing out mailers on taxes being unconstitutional. So the IRS seized his mailing list and looked into every subscriber to see if they were paying their taxes.  Is that wrong?
 
2013-05-15 11:40:52 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: It's Obama's idea now?

Actually, yeah. The sequester was Obama's idea to avoid the debt ceiling idiocy. Study it out.


Then why did he want to avert it? Why was so strongly critical of ita couple months ago?

Maybe he was just blowing smoke to appease his virulently anti-austerity pro spending supporters, while in reality he recognized the need for spending cuts. If thats the case, good for him. Reduces my regrets in voting for him.
 
2013-05-15 11:41:20 AM

BMulligan: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents; that's what this issue boils down to.

Unfortunately, an enormous unethical "cheating" culture has enveloped the current "command economy" government regime, and there is now an enormous backlash that is beginning to seek out balance between the two economic polarities. The IRS effectively altered election results through harassment methods. IRS "operatives," so to speak, working directly in tacit agreement with the Obama campaign, worked as thoroughly as possible (while on taxpayers' dimes) to divert resources and money away from conservative efforts to encourage citizens for the conservative causes and candidates. There's really no two ways about it.  that's what was done. End of story.

Someone forgot to take his medications this morning.


That would be you....and BTW, write something coherent, or STFU. What I wrote is spot on.
 
2013-05-15 11:42:44 AM

ExpressPork: Just to be clear, I'm libertarian


Thanks for giving us a heads-up. It saves a lot of time that would be wasted reading pretentious bullshiat.

/to the blimps!
 
2013-05-15 11:44:10 AM
Ahah...I can't believe you losers are still defending president clueless and his thuggish administration. No wonder history is filled with tyrants backed by a bunch of useful idiots.  Shameful.
 
2013-05-15 11:44:13 AM

Epoch_Zero: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Protip: OWS weren't viking raiders.

Teahadists like to stick with mass shootings. Or flying planes into buildings. (no, not that building)


You're kinda mixing up groups there and blatantly lying.  Its ok you're having a bad week

OWS liberals actually do try to blow up bridges, Teatards huff and puff and carry badly spelled signs
 
2013-05-15 11:44:19 AM

BMulligan: Fifi Le Pew: I'm glad the IRS is getting the magnifying glass.  They've needed to be brought down a peg or two for YEARS.  And I'm not talking Obama years, either.  I have seen first hand just how scuzzy the IRS is:  Reneging on contractual payments with taxpayers, contacting and scaring the beejeezus out of taxpayers for additional monies that are not owed (and are KNOWN to not be owed), unilaterally deciding the amount of allowances you may take on your W-4 regardless of actual dependents, etc.

I hope they investigate every aspect of the IRS, not just their approval of tax exempt status for organizations.  This has nothing to do with who is president, and everything to do with the IRS's imperious nature.

That's weird. Somehow all of your citations seem to have disappeared.


You would like for me to cite from my first hand experiences?  I certainly could, but I doubt you're really that interested in hearing about the treatment afforded by the IRS to myself and others in my circle of friends, acquaintances, and co-workers.  I could be wrong on this, but it's probably a TLDR for most here.
 
2013-05-15 11:45:19 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: It's Obama's idea now?

Actually, yeah. The sequester was Obama's idea to avoid the debt ceiling idiocy. Study it out.

Then why did he want to avert it? Why was so strongly critical of ita couple months ago?

Maybe he was just blowing smoke to appease his virulently anti-austerity pro spending supporters, while in reality he recognized the need for spending cuts. If thats the case, good for him. Reduces my regrets in voting for him.


WTF are you on about? You realize that Obama has always supported spending cuts, right? Do you even know what the sequester is? Do you know the difference between "normal" spending cuts and the sequester?
 
2013-05-15 11:45:59 AM

Fifi Le Pew: BMulligan: Fifi Le Pew: I'm glad the IRS is getting the magnifying glass.  They've needed to be brought down a peg or two for YEARS.  And I'm not talking Obama years, either.  I have seen first hand just how scuzzy the IRS is:  Reneging on contractual payments with taxpayers, contacting and scaring the beejeezus out of taxpayers for additional monies that are not owed (and are KNOWN to not be owed), unilaterally deciding the amount of allowances you may take on your W-4 regardless of actual dependents, etc.

I hope they investigate every aspect of the IRS, not just their approval of tax exempt status for organizations.  This has nothing to do with who is president, and everything to do with the IRS's imperious nature.

That's weird. Somehow all of your citations seem to have disappeared.

You would like for me to cite from my first hand experiences?  I certainly could, but I doubt you're really that interested in hearing about the treatment afforded by the IRS to myself and others in my circle of friends, acquaintances, and co-workers.  I could be wrong on this, but it's probably a TLDR for most here.


Anecdotal evidence is not a citation.
 
2013-05-15 11:46:55 AM

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents; that's what this issue boils down to. Unfortunately, an enormous unethical "cheating" culture has enveloped the current "command economy" government regime, and there is now an enormous backlash that is beginning to seek out balance between the two economic polarities. The IRS effectively altered election results through harassment methods. IRS "operatives," so to speak, working directly in tacit agreement with the Obama campaign, worked as thoroughly as possible (while on taxpayers' dimes) to divert resources and money away from conservative efforts to encourage citizens for the conservative causes and candidates. There's really no two ways about it.  that's what was done. End of story.
[i159.photobucket.com image 355x515]


Cute. Your goofiness is noted. Thanks for playing.
 
2013-05-15 11:47:02 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Maybe he was just blowing smoke to appease his virulently anti-austerity pro spending supporters, while in reality he recognized the need for spending cuts. If thats the case, good for him. Reduces my regrets in voting for him.


That was an actual theory being floated. The sequester was the only way to get any sort of real cuts to the military, and since SS and other safety net programs were untouched, let it go.

He got the Republicans to cut the military. Nice play.
 
2013-05-15 11:47:27 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: The CBO projected deficit for the 2013 fiscal year that ends sept. 30? You don't think the spending cuts factored into that?

Oh, now it just "factored in"? Before it was "thanks sequester!" now it's "it factored in"

Keep movin them goalposts!


Do you seriously have no idea how budget projections are made? The sequester has reduced spending, thereby reducing the projected deficit referred to in BMulligan's link. So, yes, thanks sequester (and Obama, if you want to say sequester was his doing). Other items obviously also factor into the reduced deficit projections. One of which is the gradually improving economy (despite the sequester, for which we agree Obama was primarily responsible)
 
2013-05-15 11:48:27 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: So to recap, here's the "scandals" plaguing Obama:

There was an attack on a consulate that resulted in embassy staff and an ambassador being murdered, but the attack happened so fast and in such a remote location that no reactive measures could be taken, prompting us to have a frank talk about security needs.

AND THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T SAY TERRORIST!  HE DIDN'T SAY IT!  NOT FOR DAYS!  AN ACT OF TERROR IS NOT A TERRORIST ATTACK!

The DOJ issued perfectly legal process to obtain journalistic records to find the identity of a leak that could develop into a threat to national security, promoting the Fourth Estate to piss themselves in fear of tyranny and the rest of the country to shrug and say, "leaks are maybe not always so good?"

And finally, the IRS may have singled out an indeterminate number of groups with "tea party" in the name for increased scrutiny as to their 501(c)(4) applications but hasn't denied any of them, and may have not taken a serious enough look at some applications by progressive groups, an act which in no way could be attributed to the President EVEN IF it is determined to be improper (which no one should concede).

And the last time we had a Democratic president, his big "scandal" was lying about his side piece.

Contrast that with the "scandals" of our past few Republican presidents, such as lying to start a war, deliberately ignoring intelligence about terrorists seeking to attack the US because it detracted from the boogeyman they really wanted to get, selling weapons to a nation holding our embassy staff hostage to finance right-wing death squads in Latin America, delaying the release of hostages to win an election, etc.

Tell me again why we aren't burning down every GOP headquarters and tarring and feathering every last R for treason?


Don't forget the most important part of 'ghazigate....
 
2013-05-15 11:49:19 AM

SithLord: Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?


Wait, I thought OWS was a joke and should not be taken seriously by anyone.  How did they get to be a threat to the very existence of this country?

Oh wait - this is one of those doublethink things, right?  Like how 0bama is an ineffectual empty suit and a tyrannical dictator?
 
2013-05-15 11:49:53 AM

Witty_Retort: Tomahawk513: That would sure be nice. I agree with what the IRS did, placing more scrutiny on semi-political groups, but disagree with the way in which they did it, basically a key-word search. We don't tolerate racial profiling, why should we tolerate political profiling?

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% rejection (or 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.


Why weren't keywords such as "Progressive", etc. used? It's just as easy.

There was a 0% rejection rate for these "conservative" groups per everything I've read, AFTER they implemented the increased scrutiny. Yes, some groups retracted, but that could be due to any number of reasons including not wanting to deal with that BS or maybe some were trying to pass themselves off as something they weren't.
 
2013-05-15 11:50:00 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: The CBO projected deficit for the 2013 fiscal year that ends sept. 30? You don't think the spending cuts factored into that?

Oh, now it just "factored in"? Before it was "thanks sequester!" now it's "it factored in"

Keep movin them goalposts!

Do you seriously have no idea how budget projections are made? The sequester has reduced spending, thereby reducing the projected deficit referred to in BMulligan's link. So, yes, thanks sequester (and Obama, if you want to say sequester was his doing). Other items obviously also factor into the reduced deficit projections. One of which is the gradually improving economy (despite the sequester, for which we agree Obama was primarily responsible)


No. Read the link again. The whole thing. The reduction in the current deficit estimate from the previous deficit estimate has ZERO to do with the sequester.
 
2013-05-15 11:50:42 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: The CBO projected deficit for the 2013 fiscal year that ends sept. 30? You don't think the spending cuts factored into that?

Oh, now it just "factored in"? Before it was "thanks sequester!" now it's "it factored in"

Keep movin them goalposts!

Do you seriously have no idea how budget projections are made? The sequester has reduced spending, thereby reducing the projected deficit referred to in BMulligan's link. So, yes, thanks sequester (and Obama, if you want to say sequester was his doing). Other items obviously also factor into the reduced deficit projections. One of which is the gradually improving economy (despite the sequester, for which we agree Obama was primarily responsible)


I have to admit that I find it hilarious that Republicans in Congress fell all over themselves to blame Obama for the sequestration and, now, people are saying the economy is getting stronger because of the sequestration. I guess they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.
 
2013-05-15 11:51:06 AM

Witty_Retort: Debeo Summa Credo: Maybe he was just blowing smoke to appease his virulently anti-austerity pro spending supporters, while in reality he recognized the need for spending cuts. If thats the case, good for him. Reduces my regrets in voting for him.

That was an actual theory being floated. The sequester was the only way to get any sort of real cuts to the military, and since SS and other safety net programs were untouched, let it go.

He got the Republicans to cut the military. Nice play.


Whether or not that was the intention, it has and will work out well for America. Hopefully Obama will make additional pragmatic decisions regarding spending for the remainder of his term.
 
2013-05-15 11:51:41 AM

lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents; that's what this issue boils down to. Unfortunately, an enormous unethical "cheating" culture has enveloped the current "command economy" government regime, and there is now an enormous backlash that is beginning to seek out balance between the two economic polarities. The IRS effectively altered election results through harassment methods. IRS "operatives," so to speak, working directly in tacit agreement with the Obama campaign, worked as thoroughly as possible (while on taxpayers' dimes) to divert resources and money away from conservative efforts to encourage citizens for the conservative causes and candidates. There's really no two ways about it.  that's what was done. End of story.
[i159.photobucket.com image 355x515]

Cute. Your goofiness is noted. Thanks for playing.


You're welcome.  Your paranoid insanity is my pleasure.

Tell me more about about the scary black man!!
 
2013-05-15 11:51:57 AM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Obama's Reptiloid Master: So to recap, here's the "scandals" plaguing Obama:

There was an attack on a consulate that resulted in embassy staff and an ambassador being murdered, but the attack happened so fast and in such a remote location that no reactive measures could be taken, prompting us to have a frank talk about security needs. AND THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T SAY TERRORIST!  HE DIDN'T SAY IT!  NOT FOR DAYS!  AN ACT OF TERROR IS NOT A TERRORIST ATTACK!

The DOJ issued perfectly legal process to obtain journalistic records to find the identity of a leak that could develop into a threat to national security, promoting the Fourth Estate to piss themselves in fear of tyranny and the rest of the country to shrug and say, "leaks are maybe not always so good?"

And finally, the IRS may have singled out an indeterminate number of groups with "tea party" in the name for increased scrutiny as to their 501(c)(4) applications but hasn't denied any of them, and may have not taken a serious enough look at some applications by progressive groups, an act which in no way could be attributed to the President EVEN IF it is determined to be improper (which no one should concede).

And the last time we had a Democratic president, his big "scandal" was lying about his side piece.

Contrast that with the "scandals" of our past few Republican presidents, such as lying to start a war, deliberately ignoring intelligence about terrorists seeking to attack the US because it detracted from the boogeyman they really wanted to get, selling weapons to a nation holding our embassy staff hostage to finance right-wing death squads in Latin America, delaying the release of hostages to win an election, etc.

Tell me again why we aren't burning down every GOP headquarters and tarring and feathering every last R for treason?

Don't forget the most important part of 'ghazigate....


I never thought of it like that, but man.  GOP you better step up your game!
 
2013-05-15 11:52:10 AM
As a foreigner, I don't quite get this. Surely a Tea Party group is, by definition, a political entity? And therefore of course should be scrutinised if it claims it isn't for tax purposes.

Does the Communist Party of America have tax exempt status.

And yet, Obama has said it was wrong. Intellectual reporters on the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?
 
2013-05-15 11:52:17 AM

Muta: Fart_Machine: Scerpes: Muta: The IRS gives churches a free pass. Where is the outrage regarding this?

You mean like when they give unions a free pass?

Citation needed.

He's right.  Unions are tax exempt as 501c5 organizations.


I was asking for a citation on how they were ignored like unions.
 
2013-05-15 11:52:57 AM

ShadowKamui: Epoch_Zero: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Protip: OWS weren't viking raiders.

Teahadists like to stick with mass shootings. Or flying planes into buildings. (no, not that building)

You're kinda mixing up groups there and blatantly lying.  Its ok you're having a bad week

OWS liberals actually do try to blow up bridges, Teatards huff and puff and carry badly spelled signs


What huffing and puffing might look like:
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
graphics8.nytimes.com
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-15 11:54:12 AM

inner ted: getting my laughs out of the way at what is sure to be an epic liberal ass hurty thread that basically boils down to: when my guy does it, it's fine & i just mock anyone who says otherwise or feign disinterest.

should be a blast


I love it best when biatches like you whine about persecution unprovoked. What a poor suffering conservative you are. Here's some advice for you, cupcake.
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-05-15 11:54:27 AM

Epoch_Zero: What huffing and puffing might look like:


Lib-U-Lardos, one and all.  Study it out.
 
2013-05-15 11:55:01 AM

joness0154: 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% rejection (or 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.

Why weren't keywords such as "Progressive", etc. used? It's just as easy.


Reading is fundamental.

There was a 0% rejection rate for these "conservative" groups per everything I've read, AFTER they implemented the increased scrutiny. Yes, some groups retracted, but that could be due to any number of reasons including not wanting to deal with that BS or maybe some were trying to pass themselves off as something they weren't.

Ehh... I would say about 50/50 chance between giving up and actual malfeasance.

I like the idea that these brave patriots with tea bags on their hats said "OMG filling out forms is tough. Let's give up."
 
2013-05-15 11:55:44 AM
Bungles:

....the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?

Exactly my sentiment
 
2013-05-15 11:56:13 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: thereby reducing the projected deficit referred to in BMulligan's link.


Uh, yeah maybe in the previous estimate. This current CBO estimate is reduced from that one. I.E the sequester was factored in, and then the deficit was reduced even further due to increased taxes and a growth in the economy, mainly.

Do you get it now?
 
2013-05-15 11:57:14 AM

Bungles: As a foreigner, I don't quite get this. Surely a Tea Party group is, by definition, a political entity? And therefore of course should be scrutinised if it claims it isn't for tax purposes.

Does the Communist Party of America have tax exempt status.

And yet, Obama has said it was wrong. Intellectual reporters on the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?


American centrist liberals like to immediately roll over and apologize any time a conservative accuses them of anything. All it takes is some fascist douchebag dressed as a fake pimp and a copy of Adobe Premiere to give the entire Democratic party the vapors.
 
2013-05-15 11:57:22 AM

Mjeck: Bungles:

....the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?

Exactly my sentiment


From the DoJ report that's pretty much what happened. They basically said "You did it in the wrong way"
 
2013-05-15 11:57:57 AM

Bungles: As a foreigner, I don't quite get this. Surely a Tea Party group is, by definition, a political entity? And therefore of course should be scrutinised if it claims it isn't for tax purposes.

Does the Communist Party of America have tax exempt status.

And yet, Obama has said it was wrong. Intellectual reporters on the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?


They thrive, recruit, and live off of a fake persecution complex. Now someone went and gave them supporting evidence. That, alone, is a giant PITA.
 
2013-05-15 11:58:26 AM
And yet the only entity that was actually denied tax-free status was "Emerge America," a liberal group supporting women candidates for office.
 
2013-05-15 11:58:52 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: So to recap, here's the "scandals" plaguing Obama:

There was an attack on a consulate that resulted in embassy staff and an ambassador being murdered, but the attack happened so fast and in such a remote location that no reactive measures could be taken, prompting us to have a frank talk about security needs.

The DOJ issued perfectly legal process to obtain journalistic records to find the identity of a leak that could develop into a threat to national security, promoting the Fourth Estate to piss themselves in fear of tyranny and the rest of the country to shrug and say, "leaks are maybe not always so good?"

And finally, the IRS may have singled out an indeterminate number of groups with "tea party" in the name for increased scrutiny as to their 501(c)(4) applications but hasn't denied any of them, and may have not taken a serious enough look at some applications by progressive groups, an act which in no way could be attributed to the President EVEN IF it is determined to be improper (which no one should concede).

And the last time we had a Democratic president, his big "scandal" was lying about his side piece.

Contrast that with the "scandals" of our past few Republican presidents, such as lying to start a war, deliberately ignoring intelligence about terrorists seeking to attack the US because it detracted from the boogeyman they really wanted to get, selling weapons to a nation holding our embassy staff hostage to finance right-wing death squads in Latin America, delaying the release of hostages to win an election, etc.


If we're going to go back as far as Reagan and throw the word treason around, we may as well put Nixon in there too since a lot of the problems we're still having are his fault. He's the one that pioneered the victory at all costs mindset that the modern Republicans wallow in.


SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.


Occupy Wall Street didn't do any of those things either. But then again, "Bill Ayers" is part of the Conservative Buzzword List that means you have no idea what the fark you're talking about, so what you say doesn't matter anyway.
 
2013-05-15 11:59:49 AM

bikerific: And yet the only entity that was actually denied tax-free status was "Emerge America," a liberal group supporting women candidates for office.


OMG LIBERAL GROUPS WERE ALL WAVED THROUGH!
 
2013-05-15 12:02:40 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Danger Mouse: skozlaw: Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?

According to Farbongo it is a thing. So yea, you might want to read a newspaper or something and not get all your news from FARK.

According to "farbongo," if it IS a thing, he'll investigate it. It's not looking like it's a thing yet.


Yea, about that.

Mr Fartbongo:
"I have now had the opportunity to review the Treasury Department watchdog's report on its investigation of IRS personnel who improperly targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. And the report's findings are intolerable and inexcusable,"

 Obama said he's directed Treasury Secretary Jack Lew "to hold those responsible for these failures accountable, and to make sure that each of the Inspector General's recommendations are implemented quickly, so that such conduct never happens again."


/try to keep up.
 
2013-05-15 12:03:21 PM

Epoch_Zero: ShadowKamui: Epoch_Zero: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Protip: OWS weren't viking raiders.

Teahadists like to stick with mass shootings. Or flying planes into buildings. (no, not that building)

You're kinda mixing up groups there and blatantly lying.  Its ok you're having a bad week

OWS liberals actually do try to blow up bridges, Teatards huff and puff and carry badly spelled signs

What huffing and puffing might look like:
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 152x197]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 227x170]
[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x195]
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 181x278]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 201x236]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 124x160]


And how many were actual teatards and not just racists and/or lunatics?
 
2013-05-15 12:04:02 PM
Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?
 
2013-05-15 12:04:32 PM

Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?


Define Political.
 
2013-05-15 12:04:35 PM

ShadowKamui: And how many were actual teatards and not just racists and/or lunatics?


Same difference, though.
 
2013-05-15 12:05:09 PM

ShadowKamui: Epoch_Zero: ShadowKamui: Epoch_Zero: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Protip: OWS weren't viking raiders.

Teahadists like to stick with mass shootings. Or flying planes into buildings. (no, not that building)

You're kinda mixing up groups there and blatantly lying.  Its ok you're having a bad week

OWS liberals actually do try to blow up bridges, Teatards huff and puff and carry badly spelled signs

What huffing and puffing might look like:
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 152x197]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 227x170]
[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x195]
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 181x278]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 201x236]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 124x160]

And how many were actual teatards and not just racists and/or lunatics?


How can you tell the difference?
 
2013-05-15 12:05:19 PM

Mjeck: Bungles:

....the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?

Exactly my sentiment


Here's the deal.

The left loses nothing by saying "oh it wasn't right to do that." No one cares if some low level workers in Cinncinnati get thrown under the bus in the media. They get to disclaim responsibility and no one gets hurt.

But if they say, "this was for a good reason, but the standards could have been drafted with better language," like they should say, the right wing media will whip itself up into a football-f*cking frenzy again and distract us all from real issues.

So they chose expediency. I get it. I don't blame them. I would too.

But it's like knuckling under and saying "yes dear" when your spouse wants to watch reality TV. Don't sweat the small stuff, basically.
 
2013-05-15 12:05:28 PM
If the central pillar of your group's movement is taxes, you're a political group, pure and simple.
 
2013-05-15 12:06:40 PM

Epoch_Zero: Thanks for giving us a heads-up. It saves a lot of time that would be wasted reading pretentious bullshiat.

/to the blimps!


Thanks for advertising your closed-mindedness.  It's always wise to shut out opinions which may differ from your own.
 
2013-05-15 12:08:08 PM
LasersHurt: inner ted: so the IRS is apologizing for nothing then?

I don't know what you mean. The targeting of conservative groups was bad, and most people (including most liberals)  lolno - seem to admit that.

That does not automatically lend validity to this article, with these new claims.

there is an awful lot of downplaying by lots of folks here when Obama gets a black eye for things like this.

mystery drone strikes
privacy issues
closing gitmo
not being real honest about benghazi
irs targeting his opponents

any of these, if during W's years, would have been a freaking uproar by the other side.  and rightfully so.
 
2013-05-15 12:09:05 PM

inner ted: mystery drone strikes


Wait wait. MYSTERY drone strikes?
 
2013-05-15 12:10:51 PM

inner ted: LasersHurt: inner ted: so the IRS is apologizing for nothing then?

I don't know what you mean. The targeting of conservative groups was bad, and most people (including most liberals)  lolno - seem to admit that.

That does not automatically lend validity to this article, with these new claims.

there is an awful lot of downplaying by lots of folks here when Obama gets a black eye for things like this.

mystery drone strikes
privacy issues
closing gitmo
not being real honest about benghazi
irs targeting his opponents

any of these, if during W's years, would have been a freaking uproar by the other side.  and rightfully so.


What a rich fantasy life you lead. The ones that actually would make sane people angry (the first three) DO get complaints from the center and left.
 
2013-05-15 12:11:01 PM

bigbadideasinaction: If the central pillar of your group's movement is taxes, you're a political group, pure and simple.



What on earth did they claim they did? All tea party groups do is have meeting...discussing politics...attend political rallies....being ummmm, political.... and rant on political internet forums.

Oh, and try to get their candidates elected.

What part of that isn't political?
 
2013-05-15 12:12:06 PM

inner ted: mystery drone strikes  the fu-
privacy issues  such as?
closing gitmo  republican senators
not being real honest about benghazi  bullshiat
irs targeting his opponents  who are anti-tax applying for tax-exempt status, aka, bullshiat


But you already knew this, so, yeah.
 
2013-05-15 12:12:15 PM

Bungles: As a foreigner, I don't quite get this. Surely a Tea Party group is, by definition, a political entity? And therefore of course should be scrutinised if it claims it isn't for tax purposes.

Does the Communist Party of America have tax exempt status.

And yet, Obama has said it was wrong. Intellectual reporters on the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?


The accusation is that organizations on one side of the political spectrum received disproportionate scrutiny.

Yes, almost everyone agrees that these organizations should not be tax exempt, but it is nonetheless legal.  So the outrage is the (alleged) extra attention given to groups of the "tea party" type, which happen to be on the opposite side of the spectrum as Obama.

And I don't know for certain, but the CPA probably is - and should be - tax exempt.
 
2013-05-15 12:12:50 PM

LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.


The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party..
 
2013-05-15 12:13:02 PM

Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?


Is it always political or just when a Democrat is in the White House?
 
2013-05-15 12:14:23 PM

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.

The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party..


See now here is where you lose me, is the assumed motives and party alignment.
 
2013-05-15 12:14:28 PM

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.

The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party.. they are an anti-taxation group applying for tax-exempt status under false pretenses


FTFY
 
2013-05-15 12:14:33 PM

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.

The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party..


Filling out some forms is now "borderline harassment"

Do you even know what status they were applying for?
 
2013-05-15 12:14:42 PM
inner ted:

mystery drone strikes
privacy issues
closing gitmo
not being real honest about benghazi
irs targeting his opponents

any of these, if during W's years, would have been a freaking uproar by the other side. and rightfully so.


So you agree? IDK what "closing gitmo" is supposed to be about. That can be traced to Republican obstructionism.
 
2013-05-15 12:14:48 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: inner ted: LasersHurt: inner ted: so the IRS is apologizing for nothing then?

I don't know what you mean. The targeting of conservative groups was bad, and most people (including most liberals)  lolno - seem to admit that.

That does not automatically lend validity to this article, with these new claims.

there is an awful lot of downplaying by lots of folks here when Obama gets a black eye for things like this.

mystery drone strikes
privacy issues
closing gitmo
not being real honest about benghazi
irs targeting his opponents

any of these, if during W's years, would have been a freaking uproar by the other side.  and rightfully so.

What a rich fantasy life you lead. The ones that actually would make sane people angry (the first three) DO get complaints from the center and left.


Well, Rush O'Hannity never mentions that the left is upset about these issues, so Real Americans™ think all liberals are OK with them.
 
2013-05-15 12:15:15 PM

LasersHurt: Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.

The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party..

See now here is where you lose me, is the assumed motives and party alignment.


I'm going to go out on a limb and make that assumption, yes.
 
2013-05-15 12:15:21 PM

SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.


Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.
 
2013-05-15 12:15:38 PM
The IRS made themselves lapdogs of the left.  Make them pay.  Make them squirm.

Above all they are:

torreyshannon.com
 
2013-05-15 12:15:53 PM

Lionel Mandrake: And I don't know for certain, but the CPA probably is - and should be - tax exempt.


If you mean the CPUSA, they are not presently a 501 or 527 organization.
 
2013-05-15 12:16:43 PM

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.

The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party..

See now here is where you lose me, is the assumed motives and party alignment.

I'm going to go out on a limb and make that assumption, yes.


When Bush used the IRS to target liberal groups
 
2013-05-15 12:17:29 PM

Fart_Machine: Scerpes: Muta: The IRS gives churches a free pass.  Where is the outrage regarding this?

You mean like when they give unions a free pass?

Citation needed.


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopica88.pdf
 
2013-05-15 12:18:03 PM

I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.


So you're going to run with this? Really? Which buildings did Occupiers blow up? Which cities did we "loot, rape and pillage"?
 
2013-05-15 12:19:35 PM

I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.


Knowingly voting republican is socially and economically destructive. If your country depends upon being socially and economically stable, supporting something that makes it less so is against the better interests of your country.

Hence, Republicans and the teahadists they nurture being cancer.
 
2013-05-15 12:20:02 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

So you're going to run with this? Really? Which buildings did Occupiers blow up? Which cities did we "loot, rape and pillage"?


I think he got OWS mixed up with 10th century Vikings? Maybe?
 
2013-05-15 12:20:48 PM

cameroncrazy1984: A Dark Evil Omen: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

So you're going to run with this? Really? Which buildings did Occupiers blow up? Which cities did we "loot, rape and pillage"?

I think he got OWS mixed up with 10th century Vikings? Maybe?


I don't even own a battleaxe.
 
2013-05-15 12:22:39 PM
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."
 
2013-05-15 12:22:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: thereby reducing the projected deficit referred to in BMulligan's link.

Uh, yeah maybe in the previous estimate. This current CBO estimate is reduced from that one. I.E the sequester was factored in, and then the deficit was reduced even further due to increased taxes and a growth in the economy, mainly.

Do you get it now?


The current projected deficit factors in the sequester. FY 2013 deficit will be lower thanks to the sequester. Had the sequester not happened, the deficit would have been higher. Part of the reduction from the FY 2012 deficit to the FY 2013 deficit is the $85b in sequester cuts (or whatever portion of those fall in FY 2013). Do you get it? Thank you sequester!!!

If you want to argue that other factors have affected the projected deficit, then I'd agree completely.
 
2013-05-15 12:23:34 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.

The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party..

Filling out some forms is now "borderline harassment"

Do you even know what status they were applying for?


Hey, I'm no fan of Tea Party types but you really should look a little closer. Borderline was being generous.

If you can tell me everyone who applied for that status received such a letter I will apologize.
 
2013-05-15 12:24:16 PM
 
2013-05-15 12:24:26 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: cameroncrazy1984: A Dark Evil Omen: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

So you're going to run with this? Really? Which buildings did Occupiers blow up? Which cities did we "loot, rape and pillage"?

I think he got OWS mixed up with 10th century Vikings? Maybe?

I don't even own a battleaxe.


Guys? It was me - even though I wasn't physically at any of the OWS protests (I had a 9-5 and a commute from hell), I bank with CapitalOne.
yourtruthdiet.files.wordpress.com

// Occupy Svaaalblaaadoningsburg!
 
2013-05-15 12:28:36 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Lionel Mandrake: And I don't know for certain, but the CPA probably is - and should be - tax exempt.

If you mean the CPUSA, they are not presently a 501 or 527 organization.


I'll be damned...do you know if they ever applied?
 
2013-05-15 12:29:11 PM

Witty_Retort: Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.

The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party..

See now here is where you lose me, is the assumed motives and party alignment.

I'm going to go out on a limb and make that assumption, yes.

When Bush used the IRS to target liberal groups


Good ol' Bush, he makes everything OK.
 
2013-05-15 12:29:46 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: So you're going to run with this? Really? Which buildings did Occupiers blow up? Which cities did we "loot, rape and pillage"?


You might ask him.  Your anger is for him.  Though you do seem a tad defensive.  Which did you do, rape or pillage?
 
2013-05-15 12:30:04 PM
So "conservatives" are only against profiling when it is against them.  What a surprise.
 
2013-05-15 12:30:07 PM

Lionel Mandrake: A Dark Evil Omen: Lionel Mandrake: And I don't know for certain, but the CPA probably is - and should be - tax exempt.

If you mean the CPUSA, they are not presently a 501 or 527 organization.

I'll be damned...do you know if they ever applied?


No clue. They're incompetently run, though; I have no doubt that if they did apply they would fark it up.
 
2013-05-15 12:31:00 PM
Man, only Epoch_Zero can read.  +1 for him.
 
2013-05-15 12:32:11 PM

Cletus C.: Good ol' Bush, he makes everything OK.


Well, nobody seemed to care til it happened while a blah man was President.
 
2013-05-15 12:32:43 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: thereby reducing the projected deficit referred to in BMulligan's link.

Uh, yeah maybe in the previous estimate. This current CBO estimate is reduced from that one. I.E the sequester was factored in, and then the deficit was reduced even further due to increased taxes and a growth in the economy, mainly.

Do you get it now?

The current projected deficit factors in the sequester. FY 2013 deficit will be lower thanks to the sequester. Had the sequester not happened, the deficit would have been higher. Part of the reduction from the FY 2012 deficit to the FY 2013 deficit is the $85b in sequester cuts (or whatever portion of those fall in FY 2013). Do you get it? Thank you sequester!!!

If you want to argue that other factors have affected the projected deficit, then I'd agree completely.


"Thank you sequester" implies that it's mainly due to the sequester that the deficit is lower. As that is not the case, according to the CBO, that's the problem with your characterization.
 
2013-05-15 12:35:37 PM

I_C_Weener: Man, only Epoch_Zero can read.  +1 for him.


LIES
 
2013-05-15 12:41:45 PM
God forbid this be anything but left-vs-right, when either way it's  about blatantly political groups circumventing campaign finance law by filing as 501(c)(4)'s in the wake of Citizens United.
 
2013-05-15 12:42:53 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.

The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party..

Filling out some forms is now "borderline harassment"

Do you even know what status they were applying for?

Hey, I'm no fan of Tea Party types but you really should look a little closer. Borderline was being generous.

If you can tell me everyone who applied for that status received such a letter I will apologize.


I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing the harassment here. The only requirement for it not being harassment is that everyone should have gotten one? I don't think the IRS has the money to do that.
 
2013-05-15 12:43:28 PM

Witty_Retort: Cletus C.: Good ol' Bush, he makes everything OK.

Well, nobody seemed to care til it happened while a blah man was President.


So, going from Bush to the race card? Sweet.
 
2013-05-15 12:45:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.

The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party..

Filling out some forms is now "borderline harassment"

Do you even know what status they were applying for?

Hey, I'm no fan of Tea Party types but you really should look a little closer. Borderline was being generous.

If you can tell me everyone who applied for that status received such a letter I will apologize.

I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing the harassment here. The only requirement for it not being harassment is that everyone should have gotten one? I don't think the IRS has the money to do that.


What IF Obama said this was way wrong? Would you then care that the IRS was selectively targeting?
 
2013-05-15 12:51:31 PM

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents; that's what this issue boils down to. Unfortunately, an enormous unethical "cheating" culture has enveloped the current "command economy" government regime, and there is now an enormous backlash that is beginning to seek out balance between the two economic polarities. The IRS effectively altered election results through harassment methods. IRS "operatives," so to speak, working directly in tacit agreement with the Obama campaign, worked as thoroughly as possible (while on taxpayers' dimes) to divert resources and money away from conservative efforts to encourage citizens for the conservative causes and candidates. There's really no two ways about it.  that's what was done. End of story.
[i159.photobucket.com image 355x515]

Cute. Your goofiness is noted. Thanks for playing.

You're welcome.  Your paranoid insanity is my pleasure.

Tell me more about about the scary black man!!


Well, since grotesque examples of name-calling seem to be okay, let me explain to you that ad hominem attacks on people you disagree with is right out.....

Let me reiterate the entire theory to you, as follows:

Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents; that's what this issue boils down to.

Unfortunately, an enormous unethical "cheating" culture has enveloped the current "command economy" government regime, and there is now an enormous backlash that is beginning to seek out balance between the two economic polarities. The IRS effectively altered election results through harassment methods. IRS "operatives," so to speak, working directly in tacit agreement with the Obama campaign, worked as thoroughly as possible (while on taxpayers' dimes) to divert resources and money away from conservative efforts to encourage citizens for the conservative causes and candidates. There's really no two ways about it.  that's what was done. End of story.

---This theory is much more correct and relevant than any misguided and childish declaration that your conservative opponents are insanely paranoid and "afraid of the scary black man." Write something meaningful in response to me, or STFU.
 
2013-05-15 12:53:13 PM

Cletus C.:
So, going from Bush to the race card? Sweet.

Well, nobody seemed to care til it happened while a Democrat was President. 

Revised for you delicate sensibilities. Still doesn't change your selective outrage.

Cletus C.: What IF Obama said this was way wrong? Would you then care that the IRS was selectively targeting?


Obama said it is wrong because everyone hates the IRS. He has nothing to lose in that.
The truth is that this is how the IRS works: it finds key words or deductions and determines those filings deserve extra scrutiny. Someone did some research and determined 501s with TEA or Patriot in the title had a higher chance of being fraudulent. There was a story about a liberal group with Patriot in the title being held up and asked for more paperwork.
 
2013-05-15 12:54:39 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents

Your a idiot.


No, U. That, free economy vs. command economy, is straight out of a college Economics course text book. But college isn't your thing, is it?
 
2013-05-15 12:55:00 PM

Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: Man, only Epoch_Zero can read.  +1 for him.

LIES


images.fineartamerica.com

Who are you going to believe?  Me, or your lying eyes?
 
2013-05-15 12:56:10 PM
Just to clarify for all the ignorant people: Auditing someone based upon their name is ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter WHAT THE NAME IS. /Can't believe I actually logged in to post this
 
2013-05-15 12:56:31 PM

lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents

Your a idiot.

No, U. That, free economy vs. command economy, is straight out of a college Economics course text book. But college isn't your thing, is it?


You're asserting the Dems are in favor of a command economy. You are in your own weird world that has nothing to do with this one.
 
2013-05-15 12:57:02 PM

I_C_Weener: Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: Man, only Epoch_Zero can read.  +1 for him.

LIES

[images.fineartamerica.com image 757x900]

Who are you going to believe?  Me, or your lying eyes?


Hey! Get my head out from between those scissor blades, stat!
 
2013-05-15 12:58:38 PM

Vindibudd: Just to clarify for all the ignorant people: Auditing someone based upon their name is ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter WHAT THE NAME IS. /Can't believe I actually logged in to post this


I can't believe you did either considering that nobody was audited.
 
2013-05-15 12:59:02 PM

Vindibudd: Just to clarify for all the ignorant people: Auditing someone based upon their name is ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter WHAT THE NAME IS. /Can't believe I actually logged in to post this


Not people, but what about organization?
 
2013-05-15 12:59:19 PM

Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

Knowingly voting republican is socially and economically destructive. If your country depends upon being socially and economically stable, supporting something that makes it less so is against the better interests of your country.

Hence, Republicans and the teahadists they nurture being cancer.


Well, yeah that's just your opinion.
 
2013-05-15 01:01:48 PM

Fart_Machine: Vindibudd: Just to clarify for all the ignorant people: Auditing someone based upon their name is ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter WHAT THE NAME IS. /Can't believe I actually logged in to post this

I can't believe you did either considering that nobody was audited.


Hey, man, my real name is Freedom Patriot TEA Party MacDonald and I got the shiat audited out of me. I'm pretty sure it was because of my name, and maybe also the tax evasion.
 
2013-05-15 01:02:45 PM

Fart_Machine: Vindibudd: Just to clarify for all the ignorant people: Auditing someone based upon their name is ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter WHAT THE NAME IS. /Can't believe I actually logged in to post this

I can't believe you did either considering that nobody was audited.


Singling people out based on their politics, be they groups of people or individuals to slow walk their applications for tax exemption or audit them based upon political beliefs is illegal. Does that cover everything?
 
2013-05-15 01:02:58 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents

Your a idiot.

No, U. That, free economy vs. command economy, is straight out of a college Economics course text book. But college isn't your thing, is it?

You're asserting the Dems are in favor of a command economy. You are in your own weird world that has nothing to do with this one.


From Merriam:  an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned

Dear Omen, yours is the weird world. Go take some economics courses, please, before you make a further fool of yourself.
 
2013-05-15 01:03:16 PM

Witty_Retort: Cletus C.: Good ol' Bush, he makes everything OK.

Well, nobody seemed to care til it happened while a blah man was President.


It honestly doesn't matter in this case that Obama is black. It's that he's a Democrat; him being black is a handy bonus for the kind of people Republicans have been courting for the last half-century. And they know it.

To put it as bluntly as possible, the kind of amoral tools who would actively seek out and associate with racists, Christian jihadist-equivalents and lunatics just to win the Big Game are the kind of people who would happily ignore their team cheating- then squeal their little pig faces off when they saw the other team do so much as burp in an offensive manner. And in continually distorting political discourse like this they then have the unbelievable, unforgivable gall to be upset when the other side has to resort to acting like them just to keep them from cheating their way to victory.

They sat silent while precedent was set, never being intelligent enough to understand checks and balances. Never being intelligent enough to realize that any power you give yourself in a democracy will someday be wielded by your political enemies. They sat on their hands while their side changed the rules, and now they're objecting to the rules having been changed. fark `em.

And sadly, while a lot of what's going on is obviously reprehensible on either side, the team-sports paradigm wins the day. The alternative to ignoring Obama's crimes is to call him on them and end up with the Republicans in power again. And the Republicans are worse. Demonstrably worse. On every subject that matters to me and most of the people I know.

So yeah: the Republican Party broke democracy. Best part is? Eventually our elected government will be so damn dysfunctional that somebody's brand of fascism is going to sound like a swell idea because shiat will actually get done. We're pretty close now, the only question is who's sitting in the chair when the music stops...
 
2013-05-15 01:04:32 PM
Has anyone provided a non-hilarious description of the charitable/non-political activities performed by Tea Party groups?
 
2013-05-15 01:04:35 PM

lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents

Your a idiot.

No, U. That, free economy vs. command economy, is straight out of a college Economics course text book. But college isn't your thing, is it?

You're asserting the Dems are in favor of a command economy. You are in your own weird world that has nothing to do with this one.

From Merriam:  an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned

Dear Omen, yours is the weird world. Go take some economics courses, please, before you make a further fool of yourself.


Ha ha, look at you, you really believe the Dems are communists.
 
2013-05-15 01:05:10 PM

gimmegimme: Has anyone provided a non-hilarious description of the charitable/non-political activities performed by Tea Party groups?


Here's one:
 
2013-05-15 01:05:26 PM

Anonymous Bosch: Witty_Retort: Cletus C.: Good ol' Bush, he makes everything OK.

Well, nobody seemed to care til it happened while a blah man was President.

It honestly doesn't matter in this case that Obama is black. It's that he's a Democrat; him being black is a handy bonus for the kind of people Republicans have been courting for the last half-century. And they know it.

To put it as bluntly as possible, the kind of amoral tools who would actively seek out and associate with racists, Christian jihadist-equivalents and lunatics just to win the Big Game are the kind of people who would happily ignore their team cheating- then squeal their little pig faces off when they saw the other team do so much as burp in an offensive manner. And in continually distorting political discourse like this they then have the unbelievable, unforgivable gall to be upset when the other side has to resort to acting like them just to keep them from cheating their way to victory.

They sat silent while precedent was set, never being intelligent enough to understand checks and balances. Never being intelligent enough to realize that any power you give yourself in a democracy will someday be wielded by your political enemies. They sat on their hands while their side changed the rules, and now they're objecting to the rules having been changed. fark `em.

And sadly, while a lot of what's going on is obviously reprehensible on either side, the team-sports paradigm wins the day. The alternative to ignoring Obama's crimes is to call him on them and end up with the Republicans in power again. And the Republicans are worse. Demonstrably worse. On every subject that matters to me and most of the people I know.

So yeah: the Republican Party broke democracy. Best part is? Eventually our elected government will be so damn dysfunctional that somebody's brand of fascism is going to sound like a swell idea because shiat will actually get done. We're pretty close now, the only question is who's sitting in the chair w ...


In short, cheaters calling cheaters cheaters is cheating. Cheat.
 
2013-05-15 01:05:27 PM

Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

Knowingly voting republican is socially and economically destructive. If your country depends upon being socially and economically stable, supporting something that makes it less so is against the better interests of your country.

Hence, Republicans and the teahadists they nurture being cancer.

Well, yeah that's just your opinion.


Nope. Deficits, debt, social mobility and economic growth are all worse under Republican administrations. They are literally bad for this country. A resident malignancy, if you will.
 
2013-05-15 01:05:49 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: You're asserting the Dems are in favor of a command economy. You are in your own weird world that has nothing to do with this one.


You'll have to go easy on him. They don't have reality in Beckistan.
 
2013-05-15 01:06:40 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents

Your a idiot.

No, U. That, free economy vs. command economy, is straight out of a college Economics course text book. But college isn't your thing, is it?

You're asserting the Dems are in favor of a command economy. You are in your own weird world that has nothing to do with this one.

From Merriam:  an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned

Dear Omen, yours is the weird world. Go take some economics courses, please, before you make a further fool of yourself.

Ha ha, look at you, you really believe the Dems are communists.


It's a scale, moran. Each side leans towards one or the other extreme. Get it?  Jeez.
 
2013-05-15 01:07:47 PM

lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents

Your a idiot.

No, U. That, free economy vs. command economy, is straight out of a college Economics course text book. But college isn't your thing, is it?

You're asserting the Dems are in favor of a command economy. You are in your own weird world that has nothing to do with this one.

From Merriam:  an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned

Dear Omen, yours is the weird world. Go take some economics courses, please, before you make a further fool of yourself.

Ha ha, look at you, you really believe the Dems are communists.

It's a scale, moran. Each side leans towards one or the other extreme. Get it?  Jeez.


And the Dems are most definitely on the capitalist market end of the scale. Quite strongly, in fact.

Moran.
 
2013-05-15 01:08:26 PM

Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

Knowingly voting republican is socially and economically destructive. If your country depends upon being socially and economically stable, supporting something that makes it less so is against the better interests of your country.

Hence, Republicans and the teahadists they nurture being cancer.

Well, yeah that's just your opinion.


No. It isn't opinion. It's demonstrative fact. Don't ask me for evidence, we've both lived through it!

Voluntary ignorance is for suckers, Vindibudd. Don't be a sucker.
 
2013-05-15 01:08:44 PM

Epoch_Zero: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Protip: OWS weren't viking raiders.

Teahadists like to stick with mass shootings. Or flying planes into buildings. (no, not that building)


Those were YeeHaw-dists.
 
2013-05-15 01:08:52 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Fart_Machine: Vindibudd: Just to clarify for all the ignorant people: Auditing someone based upon their name is ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter WHAT THE NAME IS. /Can't believe I actually logged in to post this

I can't believe you did either considering that nobody was audited.

Hey, man, my real name is Freedom Patriot TEA Party MacDonald and I got the shiat audited out of me. I'm pretty sure it was because of my name, and maybe also the tax evasion.


Having a political position about taxation policies does not make someone a tax evader. I mean really.
 
2013-05-15 01:09:19 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents

Your a idiot.

No, U. That, free economy vs. command economy, is straight out of a college Economics course text book. But college isn't your thing, is it?

You're asserting the Dems are in favor of a command economy. You are in your own weird world that has nothing to do with this one.

From Merriam:  an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned

Dear Omen, yours is the weird world. Go take some economics courses, please, before you make a further fool of yourself.

Ha ha, look at you, you really believe the Dems are communists.

It's a scale, moran. Each side leans towards one or the other extreme. Get it?  Jeez.

And the Dems are most definitely on the capitalist market end of the scale. Quite strongly, in fact.

Moran.


No.
But see, I'm playing fairly nicely today. Leaving you alls' fine company now to go post finally somewhere else. Enjoy....
 
2013-05-15 01:09:43 PM

gimmegimme: Has anyone provided a non-hilarious description of the charitable/non-political activities performed by Tea Party groups?


On Chris Matthews the other night, he had a representative from Tea Party Patriots trying to defend their 501(c)(4) status as non-political. She, without a shread of irony, said part of it was how educating people about how Obamacare is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed since the Supreme Court won't rule it unconstitutional. Except, they had to call it "health care reform" instead of "Obamacare", because calling it "Obamacare" would count as express advocacy and they'd stand to lose their tax-exempt status for it.

It stops being funny when you realize these people have hundreds of millions of anonymously-donated money, and can spend it on elections without limit for exactlythe reason she just elucidated: after  Citizens United, issue ads "don't count".
 
2013-05-15 01:11:47 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: And the Dems are most definitely on the capitalist market end of the scale. Quite strongly, in fact.

Moran.


Shh...don't explain to him that military spending on the scale we see in the US -- staunchly advocated by Republicans, and urged to be increased by Republicans -- is a clear indicator of what he refers to as a "command economy"
 
2013-05-15 01:12:02 PM

Epoch_Zero: Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

Knowingly voting republican is socially and economically destructive. If your country depends upon being socially and economically stable, supporting something that makes it less so is against the better interests of your country.

Hence, Republicans and the teahadists they nurture being cancer.

Well, yeah that's just your opinion.

Nope. Deficits, debt, social mobility and economic growth are all worse under Republican administrations. They are literally bad for this country. A resident malignancy, if you will.


Who's been in charge of Detroit for 50 years? Republicans?
 
2013-05-15 01:13:53 PM

that bosnian sniper: gimmegimme: Has anyone provided a non-hilarious description of the charitable/non-political activities performed by Tea Party groups?

On Chris Matthews the other night, he had a representative from Tea Party Patriots trying to defend their 501(c)(4) status as non-political. She, without a shread of irony, said part of it was how educating people about how Obamacare is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed since the Supreme Court won't rule it unconstitutional. Except, they had to call it "health care reform" instead of "Obamacare", because calling it "Obamacare" would count as express advocacy and they'd stand to lose their tax-exempt status for it.

It stops being funny when you realize these people have hundreds of millions of anonymously-donated money, and can spend it on elections without limit for exactlythe reason she just elucidated: after  Citizens United, issue ads "don't count".


Ha.  Did she claim that "Tea Party Patriots" has members across the ideological spectrum?
 
2013-05-15 01:18:46 PM

that bosnian sniper: A Dark Evil Omen: And the Dems are most definitely on the capitalist market end of the scale. Quite strongly, in fact.

Moran.

Shh...don't explain to him that military spending on the scale we see in the US -- staunchly advocated by Republicans, and urged to be increased by Republicans -- is a clear indicator of what he refers to as a "command economy"


As is attacking labor organization and undermining public systems like universal health care that make it easier and more possible for people to change jobs, start their own businesses, join small co-ops and the like. But those are all sociamalism and military spending is Freedom Dollars so it doesn't count either.
 
2013-05-15 01:18:48 PM

Vindibudd: Who's been in charge of Detroit for 50 years? Republicans?


How's gun control in New York working?
Climate change isn't real because it snows in the winter.

See, you can't pull out part of a society and try to judge the whole of society against the targeted group. There are various interactions around the borders of any of those things that you are actively ignoring.
 
2013-05-15 01:21:04 PM

Vindibudd: Fart_Machine: Vindibudd: Just to clarify for all the ignorant people: Auditing someone based upon their name is ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter WHAT THE NAME IS. /Can't believe I actually logged in to post this

I can't believe you did either considering that nobody was audited.

Singling people out based on their politics, be they groups of people or individuals to slow walk their applications for tax exemption or audit them based upon political beliefs is illegal. Does that cover everything?


They profiled them to be flagged based on key words not because they did any detailed investigation due to their politics and decided to hassle them.  It's profiling.  It's wrong.  But that doesn't mean it's illegal.
 
2013-05-15 01:22:34 PM

Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

Knowingly voting republican is socially and economically destructive. If your country depends upon being socially and economically stable, supporting something that makes it less so is against the better interests of your country.

Hence, Republicans and the teahadists they nurture being cancer.

Well, yeah that's just your opinion.

Nope. Deficits, debt, social mobility and economic growth are all worse under Republican administrations. They are literally bad for this country. A resident malignancy, if you will.

Who's been in charge of Detroit for 50 years? Republicans?


That's an awfully silly thing to say.  Are you implying that Republicans could have kept the population of the city from decreasing by half and the auto industry from moving away?  Silly billy.
 
2013-05-15 01:26:30 PM

Fart_Machine: Vindibudd: Fart_Machine: Vindibudd: Just to clarify for all the ignorant people: Auditing someone based upon their name is ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter WHAT THE NAME IS. /Can't believe I actually logged in to post this

I can't believe you did either considering that nobody was audited.

Singling people out based on their politics, be they groups of people or individuals to slow walk their applications for tax exemption or audit them based upon political beliefs is illegal. Does that cover everything?

They profiled them to be flagged based on key words not because they did any detailed investigation due to their politics and decided to hassle them.  It's profiling.  It's wrong.  But that doesn't mean it's illegal.


Couldn't you justify looking out for the organizations that are inherently political, seeing as how these kinds of organizations are not allowed to be inherently political?
 
2013-05-15 01:26:37 PM
Epoch_Zero: inner ted: mystery we'll take the mystery out of it - inappropriate / overuse of drone strikes  the fu- http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/drones so you are ok with this?
privacy issues  such as? if the above doesn't fit, then how bout we start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
closing gitmo  republican senators even libb mc libster bloomberg rag says you are wrong http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/obama-has-leverage-to-get-h is -way-on-guantanamo.html 
not being real honest about benghazi  bullshiat - been working - so something something coverup
irs targeting his opponents  who are anti-tax applying for tax-exempt status, aka, bullshiat again, why do they apologize if it's as you say... bullshiat? do you apologize for things you are accused of that you didn't do?

But you already knew this, so, yeah.
 
2013-05-15 01:30:13 PM

inner ted: Epoch_Zero: inner ted: mystery we'll take the mystery out of it - inappropriate / overuse of drone strikes  the fu- http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/drones so you are ok with this?
privacy issues  such as? if the above doesn't fit, then how bout we start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
closing gitmo  republican senators even libb mc libster bloomberg rag says you are wrong http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/obama-has-leverage-to-get-h is -way-on-guantanamo.html 
not being real honest about benghazi  bullshiat - been working - so something something coverup
irs targeting his opponents  who are anti-tax applying for tax-exempt status, aka, bullshiat again, why do they apologize if it's as you say... bullshiat? do you apologize for things you are accused of that you didn't do?

But you already knew this, so, yeah.


idonot know what u r talking abouteverything u say iskindasmooooooshed
togetherif you want2getur ideas a cross tryformingur wrdsntosntncs
 
2013-05-15 01:31:14 PM
I always thought republicans are in favor of profiling./oops, I forgot.. they're only in favor of profiling brown people
 
2013-05-15 01:32:46 PM
That headline was whiny butthurt, subby.  But at least it was funny whiny butthurt.  So...well done?
 
2013-05-15 01:38:39 PM

inner ted: closing gitmo republican senators even libb mc libster bloomberg rag says you are wrong http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/obama-has-leverage-to-get-h is -way-on-guantanamo.html


So Obama is a nefarious dictator then you  link an editorial that says he should operate unilaterally?
 
2013-05-15 01:40:01 PM

Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

Knowingly voting republican is socially and economically destructive. If your country depends upon being socially and economically stable, supporting something that makes it less so is against the better interests of your country.

Hence, Republicans and the teahadists they nurture being cancer.

Well, yeah that's just your opinion.

Nope. Deficits, debt, social mobility and economic growth are all worse under Republican administrations. They are literally bad for this country. A resident malignancy, if you will.

Who's been in charge of Detroit for 50 years? Republicans?


The other group that heavily intersects with republicans in the venn diagram: morons.
 
2013-05-15 01:47:49 PM

lantawa: Uh, hey, everybody! I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and a big butt and my butt smells and I like to kiss my own butt.

 


Thanks for sharing
 
2013-05-15 01:48:52 PM
overzealous staffer.  non issue.
 
2013-05-15 01:49:48 PM
If by "waved through" you mean "put through the same processes as the Tea Party groups, and actually--gasp!--rejecting one's application for non-profit status", then yes, they were waved through.
 
2013-05-15 02:01:34 PM

phaseolus: lantawa: Uh, hey, everybody! I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and a big butt and my butt smells and I like to kiss my own butt. 


Thanks for sharing


Once again, what are you doing? I did not write those words. You have italicized the words and sequence to make it appear that I wrote those words.  Do not do that.  Do you not understand how things work around here? Stahp. Naow...
 
2013-05-15 02:04:10 PM

lantawa: Once again, what are you doing? I did not write those words. You have italicized the words and sequence to make it appear that I wrote those words. Do not do that. Do you not understand how things work around here? Stahp. Naow...



On second thought, it didn't turn out as funny as I thought it would. It was kind of mean. I'm sorry I piled on like that.
 
2013-05-15 02:05:19 PM

Not_The_Target_Market: [userserve-ak.last.fm image 443x574]


Came here for this... leaving satisfied.
 
2013-05-15 02:18:40 PM

phaseolus: lantawa: Once again, what are you doing? I did not write those words. You have italicized the words and sequence to make it appear that I wrote those words. Do not do that. Do you not understand how things work around here? Stahp. Naow...


On second thought, it didn't turn out as funny as I thought it would. It was kind of mean. I'm sorry I piled on like that.


Thanks. I'm working at keeping my invective down to a dull roar, myself. I think it's working, heh.
 
2013-05-15 02:24:57 PM

IlGreven: If by "waved through" you mean "put through the same processes as the Tea Party groups, and actually--gasp!--rejecting one's application for non-profit status", then yes, they were waved through.


Was it the same 55 questions?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323978/Revealed-The-55-ques ti ons-IRS-asked-tea-party-group-years-waiting--including-demands-names-d onors-volunteers.html
 
2013-05-15 02:27:49 PM
I would give money to a group named "Mother Gaia's Nuanced Vegans for Appeasement" just on the slim hope that I could someday watch the expression on a Fox newscaster's face as they uttered that name.

/priceless
 
2013-05-15 02:29:51 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: thereby reducing the projected deficit referred to in BMulligan's link.

Uh, yeah maybe in the previous estimate. This current CBO estimate is reduced from that one. I.E the sequester was factored in, and then the deficit was reduced even further due to increased taxes and a growth in the economy, mainly.

Do you get it now?

The current projected deficit factors in the sequester. FY 2013 deficit will be lower thanks to the sequester. Had the sequester not happened, the deficit would have been higher. Part of the reduction from the FY 2012 deficit to the FY 2013 deficit is the $85b in sequester cuts (or whatever portion of those fall in FY 2013). Do you get it? Thank you sequester!!!

If you want to argue that other factors have affected the projected deficit, then I'd agree completely.

"Thank you sequester" implies that it's mainly due to the sequester that the deficit is lower. As that is not the case, according to the CBO, that's the problem with your characterization.


Well, I have no rebuttal for that, other than 'welcome to fark', I guess.  I figured the guy to whom I was responding, who wanted to claim that our fiscal policies were working fine (and presumably precluding the need for further belt tightening), would be the type of person who is against the belt tightening of the sequester.  Since the sequester is among the fiscal policies that improved the deficit position, I thought I'd point that out.
 
2013-05-15 02:32:01 PM

Sagus: IlGreven: If by "waved through" you mean "put through the same processes as the Tea Party groups, and actually--gasp!--rejecting one's application for non-profit status", then yes, they were waved through.

Was it the same 55 questions?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323978/Revealed-The-55-ques ti ons-IRS-asked-tea-party-group-years-waiting--including-demands-names-d onors-volunteers.html


here are the actual questions
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05_02/Richmond%20tea%20party%20I RS %20letter.pdf
 
2013-05-15 02:37:12 PM
Okay, so, basically it looks like the IRS targeted tea party groups, which spend most of their time trying to influence elections, for scrutiny when they applied for 501(c)4 status.

So, no, this is not a thing, this is just more of the endless torrent of whiny butthurt from the right because their little foofoo tea groups got called out by the IRS for being antagonistic political entities trying to evade paying their taxes. The same IRS that continues to let Karl Rove run one of the biggest political machines in the country tax-free.

Yea. Okay. I'm terribly, terribly outraged.
 
2013-05-15 02:48:28 PM

pacified: overzealous staffer Department. non issue.


I agree. The IRS did it wrong. But unless it is discovered that they were instructed to do this by the administration, there is no scandal here. It's effectively like the sexual abuse issue in the military; EVERYone agrees it shoudln't happen and it needs to be fixed. The end.

It's weird how many Farkers keep insisting that there was nothing wrong with what they did, when the President, The Attorney General, both parties in Congress, the RightWing Derposphere, the LeftWing Derposphere, and the head of this division at the IRS all agree that this was wrong and shouldn't have happened.
 
2013-05-15 02:50:24 PM

Not_The_Target_Market: [userserve-ak.last.fm image 443x574]


This is the central scrutinizer...as you can see, music can get you pretty farked up...take a tip from joe, do like he did, hock your imaginary guitar and get a good job...joe did, and he's a ha Uy now, on the day shift at the utility muffin research kitchen, arrogantly twisting the sterile canvas snoot of a fully-charged icing anointment utensil. and every time a nice little muffin com On the belt, he poots forth...
And if this doesn't convince you that music causes big trouble...then maybe I should turn off my plastic megaphone and sing the last song on the album in my regular voice...
 
2013-05-15 02:59:23 PM

Sagus: IlGreven: If by "waved through" you mean "put through the same processes as the Tea Party groups, and actually--gasp!--rejecting one's application for non-profit status", then yes, they were waved through.

Was it the same 55 questions?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323978/Revealed-The-55-ques ti ons-IRS-asked-tea-party-group-years-waiting--including-demands-names-d onors-volunteers.html


Ah, you've got them now! They didn't ask the rejected liberal group any addition questions at all!

They just rejected them entirely, which didn't happen to any of the Tea Party groups.
 
2013-05-15 03:17:04 PM
I just skimmed this article, but I didn't notice any specifics about how many conservative applications there are.  I did see where "dozens" of progressive applications were approved.

I understand that the volume of these applications has doubled, and that the vast majority of them are from conservative groups.

I agree that there's a problem, but it seems to me that the problem isn't that the conservative applications were scrutinized, it's that the liberal applications weren't.
 
2013-05-15 03:22:33 PM
Yeah, when ANY of this approaches the evil of 529s, let me know.

Mainly on the right, ("Citizens United") but BS no matter what the political orientation of the group is.
 
2013-05-15 03:34:57 PM

jcooli09: I agree that there's a problem, but it seems to me that the problem isn't that the conservative applications were scrutinized, it's that the liberal applications weren't.


Is there some huge number of liberal groups that act primarily as political antagonists trying to get undeserved "civic group" status so they don't have to pay their taxes?

I actually don't know, but this sure smacks of one of those things where conservatives are just whining that everything isn't in perfect balance while ignoring the fact that they're the ones loading one side of the damn boat up so heavy.

It's like when I was a little kid and I would get pissy that my parents would look harder at what I was doing than my brother after I finished an epic run of misbehavior and he'd been acting like a saint. Gee.... when you make a huge fuss and draw attention to yourself, people start paying more attention to what your doing.

Who the fark would have thought, huh?
 
2013-05-15 03:39:50 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Gonz: If the requirement for tax-free status is being a non-profit, non-political group working for social justice,

and if it is not, then what?

do you think that MoveOn is a non-political group?
or OWS?

Since when is fixing the country so more people can get jobs not social justice?


It absolutely is an important part of social justice.

When you cross over from advocating policies or lobbying for certain laws to endorsing particular candidates or parties, you have gone over the line from social justice to political campaigning, and you shouldn't be getting 501(c)(4) exempt status.

OWS never had, as far as I know, *any* legal status as a group. It was a loose group of people with lots of different ideas and political leanings who mainly were sick of the idea of that wall street got bailouts and main street got layoffs and foreclosures. It certainly wasn't a 501(c)(4).

The people who made contributions to OWS, which were mostly blankets, tents, clothing, food weren't looking for charitable deductions, they wanted to help our cause. All of our donations when to help the homeless people in the park with us.

Move on.org is a PAC, with a separate organization called MoveOn.org Civic Action that is the 501(c)(4). They aren't allowed to mingle funds, and if you contribute to the PAC it is NOT tax deductible.
 
2013-05-15 03:43:35 PM

SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.


img.math-fail.com
 
2013-05-15 04:07:57 PM

Zasteva: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

[img.math-fail.com image 750x600]


Great pic, but do you REALLY think it is wrong to say that liberals groups have also threatened the country and resorted to terrorism?

Or could you maybe clarify more precisely what you mean with your memepic?
 
2013-05-15 04:21:30 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Great pic, but do you REALLY think it is wrong to say that liberals groups have also threatened the country and resorted to terrorism?


Yea, this is one of those things where there's a huge elephant called "context" sitting in the room that you'd desperately like to ignore.

Allow me to illustrate.

Ward Churchill calls 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" and he gets fired and widely maligned across the entire political spectrum.

Ann Coulter claims that widows of 9/11 victims are enjoying their husbands deaths and she gets a best seller and another book deal.

Crazy left-wing groups like environmental radicals mostly commit property crime. Serious property crime, but property crime none-the-less. And virtually nobody not directly associated with them has a problem with them being monitored as terror groups by law enforcement.

Crazy right-wingers like Adkisson go out and shoot "liberals" or abortion doctors or shoot cops dead because they think "they're coming to confiscate my guns" and there's a huge farking uproar from the right when they find out that, golly-gee, DHS keeps tabs on right-wing terrorists too.

Yea, there are left-wing terrorists. There are left-wing idiots. There are left-wingers with really stupid, far-out, whacky opinions who do really stupid, far-out whacky things.

Difference is the left seems to be pretty embarrassed by their nutjobs while the right scrambles to reward their most extreme personalities with radio and book contracts.

So, yea, I'm comfortable saying there's no equivalency in anything but the absolute broadest possible sense.
 
2013-05-15 04:33:43 PM

HallsOfMandos: Central Scrutinizer?


That'll still be awesome 20 years from now.
 
2013-05-15 04:39:06 PM

skozlaw: So, yea, I'm comfortable saying there's no equivalency in anything but the absolute broadest possible sense.


Dude, if you have mistakebly arrived at the conslusion that I have ANYthing but scorn and contempt for Anne Coultier, Limbaugh, Beck, Moore, or any of the paid provacatuers, then you are not only off base, you aren't even on the same playing field.

And 'bbbut the other guys!' Is kinda weak. The prescence of a different, worse, group does not change any charicteristic of the first group.  I'm not going to debate the merits of the radical right and the teabaggers, because by and large, I am not a fan.

Also, speaking of context, there is a signifiant difference between Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers. I will assume you understand that. And you may want to carefully consider your view that "the left seems to be pretty embarrassed by their nutjobs"  You may not have noticed, but the left lionizes persons of questionable character quite a lot. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'..?
 
2013-05-15 04:40:37 PM
While the IRS central scrutinizer was singling out right-wing groups for nitpicking, they were waving through liberal groups' applications.

You know what? Good. Liberal groups are by and large beneficial for this country and society.

Tea Party groups, not so much. And they have enough deep pocket donors that they could easily run their stupid selfish outfits without tax exempt status.

They're just too cheap to do it.

And despite the President's token 'outrage' against what happened, this marks perhaps the one time the Democratic-led Treasury Dept had the spine to stand up to the far right wing in this country.

tl:dr suck it haters
 
2013-05-15 04:46:09 PM

BojanglesPaladin: skozlaw: So, yea, I'm comfortable saying there's no equivalency in anything but the absolute broadest possible sense.

Dude, if you have mistakebly arrived at the conslusion that I have ANYthing but scorn and contempt for Anne Coultier, Limbaugh, Beck, Moore, or any of the paid provacatuers, then you are not only off base, you aren't even on the same playing field.

And 'bbbut the other guys!' Is kinda weak. The prescence of a different, worse, group does not change any charicteristic of the first group.  I'm not going to debate the merits of the radical right and the teabaggers, because by and large, I am not a fan.

Also, speaking of context, there is a signifiant difference between Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers. I will assume you understand that. And you may want to carefully consider your view that "the left seems to be pretty embarrassed by their nutjobs"  You may not have noticed, but the left lionizes persons of questionable character quite a lot. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'..?


I love your false equivalencies.
 
2013-05-15 04:55:28 PM

gimmegimme: I love your false equivalencies.


Interesting and thoughtful analysis. Thank you for that.
 
2013-05-15 04:57:33 PM

skozlaw: BojanglesPaladin: Great pic, but do you REALLY think it is wrong to say that liberals groups have also threatened the country and resorted to terrorism?

Yea, this is one of those things where there's a huge elephant called "context" sitting in the room that you'd desperately like to ignore.

Allow me to illustrate.

Ward Churchill calls 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" and he gets fired and widely maligned across the entire political spectrum.


Isn't that the guy who faked his academic credentials, as well as his, uh, cultural background?
 
2013-05-15 05:03:56 PM

BojanglesPaladin: You may not have noticed, but the left lionizes persons of questionable character quite a lot. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'..?


Well, if you're going to come down on people for standing behind iconography of violent radicals you should probably start with the rightists constantly cosplaying as George Washington et al...
 
2013-05-15 05:06:16 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: BojanglesPaladin: You may not have noticed, but the left lionizes persons of questionable character quite a lot. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'..?

Well, if you're going to come down on people for standing behind iconography of violent radicals you should probably start with the rightists constantly cosplaying as George Washington et al...


thinkprogress.org
media.cleveland.com
 
2013-05-15 05:07:15 PM

Cletus C.: sn't that the guy who faked his academic credentials, as well as his, uh, cultural background?


That's the one. Plus I think he had a ponytail and plagerized stuff and copied other people's paintings.

But According to Fark Rules TM none of that matters if someone can prove that someone unrelated who has a different political viewpoint is also a bad person. For instance, criticisms of Ward Churchill are invalid, becasue Anne Coultier is a douchebag biatch.

Personally, I don't see why we can't all agree that both Ward Churchill AND Anne Coultier are not worth the time it would take to kick them in the junk?
 
2013-05-15 05:09:06 PM

gimmegimme: A Dark Evil Omen: BojanglesPaladin: You may not have noticed, but the left lionizes persons of questionable character quite a lot. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'..?

Well, if you're going to come down on people for standing behind iconography of violent radicals you should probably start with the rightists constantly cosplaying as George Washington et al...

[thinkprogress.org image 360x270]
[media.cleveland.com image 432x324]


Seriously, someone should slap the shiat out of those people. And that sign needs to burn to the ground.

Yeah, I went there.
 
2013-05-15 05:09:12 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Cletus C.: sn't that the guy who faked his academic credentials, as well as his, uh, cultural background?

That's the one. Plus I think he had a ponytail and plagerized stuff and copied other people's paintings.

But According to Fark Rules TM none of that matters if someone can prove that someone unrelated who has a different political viewpoint is also a bad person. For instance, criticisms of Ward Churchill are invalid, becasue Anne Coultier is a douchebag biatch.

Personally, I don't see why we can't all agree that both Ward Churchill AND Anne Coultier are not worth the time it would take to kick them in the junk?


Sigh...I'll try to explain it.  When a left-wing person is crazypants, they are marginalized and don't find important positions of power.  When a right-winger is crazypants, they write for Town Hall, who buys tons of their books and go on talk shows as a conservative commentator.
 
2013-05-15 05:10:21 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Well, if you're going to come down on people for standing behind iconography of violent radicals you should probably start with the rightists constantly cosplaying as George Washington et al...


A) I'm not doing that. I was pointing out that "the left" does not reliably distance themselves from their own unsavories either.
B) Do you really see Che Gueverra and George Washington as being comparable in terms of morals and actions?
 
2013-05-15 05:11:06 PM

whidbey: gimmegimme: A Dark Evil Omen: BojanglesPaladin: You may not have noticed, but the left lionizes persons of questionable character quite a lot. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'..?

Well, if you're going to come down on people for standing behind iconography of violent radicals you should probably start with the rightists constantly cosplaying as George Washington et al...

[thinkprogress.org image 360x270]
[media.cleveland.com image 432x324]

Seriously, someone should slap the shiat out of those people. And that sign needs to burn to the ground.

Yeah, I went there.


Well, as Bojangles would say, they're just as bad as the folks who camp out in front of banks in order to peacefully demonstrate their displeasure with our system.
 
2013-05-15 05:12:14 PM

BojanglesPaladin: B) Do you really see Che Gueverra and George Washington as being comparable in terms of morals and actions?


That were both revolutionaries.

/just sayin'
//there is some validity to what he's saying
///however Che was much more violent to his own people
 
2013-05-15 05:12:50 PM

gimmegimme: whidbey: gimmegimme: A Dark Evil Omen: BojanglesPaladin: You may not have noticed, but the left lionizes persons of questionable character quite a lot. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'..?

Well, if you're going to come down on people for standing behind iconography of violent radicals you should probably start with the rightists constantly cosplaying as George Washington et al...

[thinkprogress.org image 360x270]
[media.cleveland.com image 432x324]

Seriously, someone should slap the shiat out of those people. And that sign needs to burn to the ground.

Yeah, I went there.

Well, as Bojangles would say, they're just as bad as the folks who camp out in front of banks in order to peacefully demonstrate their displeasure with our system.


Talking about Bojangles makes me hungry for chicken.
 
2013-05-15 05:13:44 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: BojanglesPaladin: You may not have noticed, but the left lionizes persons of questionable character quite a lot. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'..?

Well, if you're going to come down on people for standing behind iconography of violent radicals you should probably start with the rightists constantly cosplaying as George Washington et al...


They didn't call Geo Washington Town Destroyer for nothing.

I really wonder how many innocent people he caused to die.
 
2013-05-15 05:14:24 PM

gimmegimme: When a left-wing person is crazypants, they are marginalized and don't find important positions of power. When a right-winger is crazypants, they write for Town Hall, who buys tons of their books and go on talk shows as a conservative commentator.


So Micheal Moore and Naom Chomsky? Are you at all familiar with Sheila Jackson Lee? Am I allowed to say Soros without everyone erupting into flames?

We can go back and forth ad infinitumn on this, but we don't really disagree. As I just said ... 'bbbut the other guys!' Is kinda weak. The prescence of a different, worse, group does not change any charicteristic of the first group. I'm not going to debate the merits of the radical right and the teabaggers, because by and large, I am not a fan.

I think what you are trying to say is that the right-wing derper paid provacatuers are much more skilled at monetizing their derp.
 
2013-05-15 05:16:41 PM

BojanglesPaladin: gimmegimme: When a left-wing person is crazypants, they are marginalized and don't find important positions of power. When a right-winger is crazypants, they write for Town Hall, who buys tons of their books and go on talk shows as a conservative commentator.

So Micheal Moore and Naom Chomsky? Are you at all familiar with Sheila Jackson Lee? Am I allowed to say Soros without everyone erupting into flames?

We can go back and forth ad infinitumn on this, but we don't really disagree. As I just said ... 'bbbut the other guys!' Is kinda weak. The prescence of a different, worse, group does not change any charicteristic of the first group. I'm not going to debate the merits of the radical right and the teabaggers, because by and large, I am not a fan.

I think what you are trying to say is that the right-wing derper paid provacatuers are much more skilled at monetizing their derp.


If you think Michael Moore is anything like Ann Coulter or Greg Gutfeld, then there's really nothing that can be done for you.
 
2013-05-15 05:17:16 PM

gimmegimme: Well, as Bojangles would say, they're just as bad as the folks who camp out in front of banks in order to peacefully demonstrate their displeasure with our system.


Yeah but HURRR
OWS raeped and murderered people DURR.
 
2013-05-15 05:19:34 PM

Mrtraveler01: That were both revolutionaries.


They both also had penises and two eyes, and are both known gunowners. Obvisouly, one can make a comparison. I'm asking if he considers them to be morally equivelant.

gimmegimme: Well, as Bojangles would say, they're just as bad as the folks who camp out in front of banks in order to peacefully demonstrate their displeasure with our system.


No. I did not say that, and would not. You keep demonstrating that you can't read what I post. You keep missing the fact that I have no love for the radical right-wing derpfest. Presumably because it conflicts with your binary politico worldview.
 
2013-05-15 05:20:28 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Cletus C.: sn't that the guy who faked his academic credentials, as well as his, uh, cultural background?

That's the one. Plus I think he had a ponytail and plagerized stuff and copied other people's paintings.

But According to Fark Rules TM none of that matters if someone can prove that someone unrelated who has a different political viewpoint is also a bad person. For instance, criticisms of Ward Churchill are invalid, becasue Anne Coultier is a douchebag biatch.

Personally, I don't see why we can't all agree that both Ward Churchill AND Anne Coultier are not worth the time it would take to kick them in the junk?


I always suspected Ann Coulter had junk. I mean look at that adam's apple. But her derpy political shiat aside, she's pretty hot for a dude.
 
2013-05-15 05:22:51 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Mrtraveler01: That were both revolutionaries.

They both also had penises and two eyes, and are both known gunowners. Obvisouly, one can make a comparison. I'm asking if he considers them to be morally equivelant.

gimmegimme: Well, as Bojangles would say, they're just as bad as the folks who camp out in front of banks in order to peacefully demonstrate their displeasure with our system.

No. I did not say that, and would not. You keep demonstrating that you can't read what I post. You keep missing the fact that I have no love for the radical right-wing derpfest. Presumably because it conflicts with your binary politico worldview.


Come on, man.  It's crazy to compare Michael Moore to Ann Coulter.  Yes, they have points of view.  One of them makes films and writes books about what is wrong with society and needs to change.  He supports it with fact and uses emotion only when it's necessary. (Dying kids, etc.)   The other is a lunatic who deliberately lobs rhetorical bombs to screw with people.  No fact.  No reason.
 
2013-05-15 05:24:14 PM

gimmegimme: If you think Michael Moore is anything like Ann Coulter or Greg Gutfeld,


I don't even know who Greg Gutfield is. I doubt I would even care. I make it a point to avoid wasting time on people who make their living by being provocative and politicaly devisive. I will have nothing to do with right-wing radio, Fox News, MSNBC talk shows, etc.  (Although I have to admit I have been a big fan of Amy Goodman'e Democracy Now).

And yes, I include Micheal Moore in that category.  I can't imagine that that is a debatable point at this stage. Maybe back in the Mike and Me days, but he's just not that guy anymore.
 
2013-05-15 05:25:42 PM

BojanglesPaladin: gimmegimme: If you think Michael Moore is anything like Ann Coulter or Greg Gutfeld,

I don't even know who Greg Gutfield is. I doubt I would even care. I make it a point to avoid wasting time on people who make their living by being provocative and politicaly devisive. I will have nothing to do with right-wing radio, Fox News, MSNBC talk shows, etc.  (Although I have to admit I have been a big fan of Amy Goodman'e Democracy Now).

And yes, I include Micheal Moore in that category.  I can't imagine that that is a debatable point at this stage. Maybe back in the Mike and Me days, but he's just not that guy anymore.


Well, I must respectfully point out that you have abandoned reason.  You don't even like the Founding Fathers.
 
2013-05-15 05:28:42 PM

gimmegimme: It's crazy to compare Michael Moore to Ann Coulter.


And yes, I include Micheal Moore in that category. I can't imagine that that is a debatable point at this stage. Maybe back in the Mike and Me days, but he's just not that guy anymore. He makes his money by being politically provocative and divisive.

I have actually watched a number of his movies, was a fan of his original TV show, and have read and still own three of his books. I have never read anything Coultier has published, nor watched her in anything beyond a soundbite clip on Colbert and the like, but I'm willing to just skip her entirely becasue it's abundantly clear what she is.

But yeah, Moore is part of the paid political provacatuer set.
 
2013-05-15 05:29:42 PM

Mrtraveler01: BojanglesPaladin: B) Do you really see Che Gueverra and George Washington as being comparable in terms of morals and actions?

That were both revolutionaries.

/just sayin'
//there is some validity to what he's saying
///however Che was much more violent to his own people


I think El Che and The American Cincinnatus are both revolutionary icons for legitimate reasons and both had a ton of blood on their hands. In general, however, no one who venerates Washington is castigated for "supporting violent rebels" even though he was, in fact, a war leader and the Continental Army racked up quite the body count. Morally equivalent? Maybe. Certainly, the circumstances of the Cuban revolution were much more dire than those of the American revolution; Batista's troops and secret police were engaging in mass murder of Communists and other dissidents. The Patriots were never put in any position as catastrophic and it's hard to argue, given how wretched things were in the Southern theater of the Revolutionary War, that the Continental Army would have been able to somehow rise above circumstances like the ones the Cuban revolutionaries faced.
 
2013-05-15 05:30:06 PM

gimmegimme: You don't even like the Founding Fathers.


I have no idea what you mean there.
 
2013-05-15 05:30:29 PM

BojanglesPaladin: gimmegimme: It's crazy to compare Michael Moore to Ann Coulter.

And yes, I include Micheal Moore in that category. I can't imagine that that is a debatable point at this stage. Maybe back in the Mike and Me days, but he's just not that guy anymore. He makes his money by being politically provocative and divisive.

I have actually watched a number of his movies, was a fan of his original TV show, and have read and still own three of his books. I have never read anything Coultier has published, nor watched her in anything beyond a soundbite clip on Colbert and the like, but I'm willing to just skip her entirely becasue it's abundantly clear what she is.

But yeah, Moore is part of the paid political provacatuer set.


Just out of curiosity, what SHOULD people do when they are concerned about others?  They can't make movies, write books, go on TV or publish articles.  Or have a web site.  What IS the acceptable method of political action?
 
2013-05-15 05:32:14 PM

BojanglesPaladin: gimmegimme: You don't even like the Founding Fathers.

I have no idea what you mean there.


You criticized Michael Moore and Ann Coulter for "make their living by being provocative and politicaly devisive."  Can you really say that Jefferson, Washington, Madison and all the others don't fall into that category?
 
2013-05-15 05:32:34 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Morally equivalent? Maybe.


Maybe?. Seriously. I'm asking if you genuinely, earnestly, legitimately and truthfully see George Washington and Che Gueverra as equivelant men in terms of morals and actions. Honest answer please.
 
2013-05-15 05:34:39 PM

BojanglesPaladin: A Dark Evil Omen: Morally equivalent? Maybe.

Maybe?. Seriously. I'm asking if you genuinely, earnestly, legitimately and truthfully see George Washington and Che Gueverra as equivelant men in terms of morals and actions. Honest answer please.


Like I said, maybe. It's hard to compare the situations. "Honestly" I lean toward yes.
 
2013-05-15 05:35:08 PM

gimmegimme: Just out of curiosity, what SHOULD people do when they are concerned about others? They can't make movies, write books, go on TV or publish articles. Or have a web site. What IS the acceptable method of political action?


Who said they can't do those things? Those are perfectly legitimate things to do.

The propblem with Maddow, Coultier, Beck and Moore and the rest is not that they put out books or have TV shows.

gimmegimme: You criticized Michael Moore and Ann Coulter for "make their living by being provocative and politicaly devisive." Can you really say that Jefferson, Washington, Madison and all the others don't fall into that category?


No they don't. I'm sure you can figure out the difference.
 
2013-05-15 05:36:03 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Like I said, maybe. It's hard to compare the situations. "Honestly" I lean toward yes.


And you are familiar with Che Gueverra's biography? Both before, during and after the revolution?
 
2013-05-15 05:37:55 PM

BojanglesPaladin: gimmegimme: Just out of curiosity, what SHOULD people do when they are concerned about others? They can't make movies, write books, go on TV or publish articles. Or have a web site. What IS the acceptable method of political action?

Who said they can't do those things? Those are perfectly legitimate things to do.

The propblem with Maddow, Coultier, Beck and Moore and the rest is not that they put out books or have TV shows.

gimmegimme: You criticized Michael Moore and Ann Coulter for "make their living by being provocative and politicaly devisive." Can you really say that Jefferson, Washington, Madison and all the others don't fall into that category?

No they don't. I'm sure you can figure out the difference.


You must be deliberately obtuse or trolling if you think that Coulter and Beck are in the same real world as you and me and Maddow and Moore.
 
2013-05-15 05:38:50 PM

BojanglesPaladin: A Dark Evil Omen: Like I said, maybe. It's hard to compare the situations. "Honestly" I lean toward yes.

And you are familiar with Che Gueverra's biography? Both before, during and after the revolution?


Yes, actually. What of it?
 
2013-05-15 05:40:45 PM

GameSprocket: Still trying to get my tax-free status for "Citizens for Circumnavigating Election Laws".


Tea Party Patriots for circumnavigating the flat earth.
 
2013-05-15 05:43:16 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, actually. What of it?


OK. That saddens me then. But fair enough. What fun would it be if everyone had the same opinions.

gimmegimme: You must be deliberately obtuse or trolling if you think that Coulter and Beck are in the same real world as you and me and Maddow and Moore.


I think that all four of them have figured out how to make a living by demonizing "the other guys" in a political platform and that some or all of them lack any actual core convictions. Clearly you believe some of them. We differ on that count.
 
2013-05-15 05:46:25 PM
Bill O'Reilly On ABC News Today

1. The White House IRS Story Is Hollow

Note: White House Is Not Allowed Nor Authorized To Talk To IRS

2. The Associated Press Hysteria

Note:The Justice Department..Went Through [Legal] Warrant Process

3. Benghazi Hysteria

Note: This Benghazi Rolling Stone Will Gather No Moss..

Because It Intertwines & Interconnects Leon Panetta & David Patraeus

/so much for the "scandals"
 
2013-05-15 05:47:58 PM

BojanglesPaladin: A Dark Evil Omen: Yes, actually. What of it?

OK. That saddens me then. But fair enough. What fun would it be if everyone had the same opinions.

gimmegimme: You must be deliberately obtuse or trolling if you think that Coulter and Beck are in the same real world as you and me and Maddow and Moore.

I think that all four of them have figured out how to make a living by demonizing "the other guys" in a political platform and that some or all of them lack any actual core convictions. Clearly you believe some of them. We differ on that count.


No, you're right.  Freedom is Slavery.  War is Peace.  Ignorance is Strength.  It's all equal, man.  We're all just here on this planet just doing our thing, man.
 
2013-05-15 05:50:07 PM

BojanglesPaladin: OK. That saddens me then


Why does that sadden you?
 
2013-05-15 05:57:14 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: BojanglesPaladin: A Dark Evil Omen: Like I said, maybe. It's hard to compare the situations. "Honestly" I lean toward yes.

And you are familiar with Che Gueverra's biography? Both before, during and after the revolution?

Yes, actually. What of it?


The question is, is he familiar with Washington's?
 
2013-05-15 06:06:17 PM

Anonymous Bosch: A Dark Evil Omen: BojanglesPaladin: A Dark Evil Omen: Like I said, maybe. It's hard to compare the situations. "Honestly" I lean toward yes.

And you are familiar with Che Gueverra's biography? Both before, during and after the revolution?

Yes, actually. What of it?

The question is, is he familiar with Washington's?


That one's easy.  He kissed Marthy goodbye and left Mount Vernon on a ship to London.  Once there, he debated with King George III until the monarch agreed that Britain should give up possession of the colonies.
 
2013-05-15 06:10:15 PM

Anonymous Bosch: The question is, is he familiar with Washington's?


I am. Is there some particular aspect you want to point out?
 
2013-05-15 06:15:28 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'


Cute. You call them activists, a word only you used, but you put it in quotes to insinuate it's what I said so you can imply that I was making excuses for them - exactly the opposite of the actual point made.

Fark off you dishonest shiatheel.
 
2013-05-15 06:16:11 PM

Mrtraveler01: Why does that sadden you?


Because while George Washington was certainly a human man and far from perfect, I think it is bordering on offensive to equate him in terms of morality and actions with Che Gueverra. Putting aside their respective ideologies, and even if we give credit that they were both passionate and brave advocates for their cause, willing to lay down their lives for what they believe in, there were clear and impprtant differences in the way they went about it and the lines they crossed.

It saddens me, because while I do not consider Che Gueverra to be some sort of hellish monster, and I do not consider Washington to have been a holy saint, I see a clear wide gulf between them in terms of their morality and actions. And it is somewhat sad that that difference is treated at inconsequential.
 
2013-05-15 06:18:51 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Mrtraveler01: Why does that sadden you?

Because while George Washington was certainly a human man and far from perfect, I think it is bordering on offensive to equate him in terms of morality and actions with Che Gueverra. Putting aside their respective ideologies, and even if we give credit that they were both passionate and brave advocates for their cause, willing to lay down their lives for what they believe in, there were clear and impprtant differences in the way they went about it and the lines they crossed.

It saddens me, because while I do not consider Che Gueverra to be some sort of hellish monster, and I do not consider Washington to have been a holy saint, I see a clear wide gulf between them in terms of their morality and actions. And it is somewhat sad that that difference is treated at inconsequential.


Which one had a higher death toll?
 
2013-05-15 06:23:41 PM

skozlaw: BojanglesPaladin: Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'

Cute. You call them activists, a word only you used,


Well, you can call them terrosists if you like, but I think in a modern context that implies an intent to kill people, which many eco groups take pains to avoid (with some lamentable exceptions), so I don't think it is applicable, or at least not fully accurate.

You used the term "environmental radicals", but I prefer 'activists' becasue it does not confer the same level of extremism. But as I said, you can choose the term that works best for you. I cannot possibly be responsible for YOUR connotations, or your reactions to your own imagined iinferences.

Is that the main thing you object to? The use of the wiord 'activist' instead of 'radical'? Becasue based on your post, you do not seem to dispute anything else said.
 
2013-05-15 06:26:38 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Is that the main thing you object to?


I object to dishonest shiatheels like you insinuating things into comments just so you can try and pick the fight you want to have instead of participating in the discussion that's actually going on.
 
2013-05-15 06:27:21 PM

gimmegimme: Which one had a higher death toll?


I supose that realy depends on what you are counting and how you are attributing. If you are counting the number of people killed by a firearm held by either of these men, then I'm fairly certain Che Gueverra has the higher body count.

But more importantly, that is not a useful metric in this instance. Do you consider Roosevelt to be an extremely immoral man? Or Lincoln?
 
2013-05-15 06:28:52 PM

BojanglesPaladin: If you are counting the number of people killed by a firearm held by either of these men, then I'm fairly certain Che Gueverra has the higher body count.


Honest question: Do you consider that a strike against Guevarra?
 
2013-05-15 06:30:33 PM

skozlaw: I object to dishonest shiatheels like you insinuating things into comments just so you can try and pick the fight you want to have instead of participating in the discussion that's actually going on.


Perhaps you should study the differences between implication and inference? I believe I clarified the choice of words. If that was too hard to grasp, I'm happy to try again. Also, what fight is it that you think I am choosing? After all, we are no longer discussing the IRS's treatment of liberal groups tax status, but I am engaging in a conversation with other Farkers.

And, you will notice, doing it civilly. Perhaps you could study that as well.
 
2013-05-15 06:30:51 PM
Yep, this is starting to sound like something with substance.

However, it sounds like those "progressive" groups should have been given more scrutiny, rather than the "tea party"/"patriot" groups given less.
 
2013-05-15 06:32:16 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Perhaps you should study the differences between implication and inference?


Perhaps he might infer such need from what you imply?

BojanglesPaladin: And, you will notice, doing it civilly. Perhaps you could study that as well.


Would seem to be a bonus.
 
2013-05-15 06:32:55 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Honest question: Do you consider that a strike against Guevarra?


Not in and of itself, no. There are any number of reasons to kill a number of human beings in an armed conflict. And while one could certainly expect that a man who was an active participant in guerilla warfare would have killed more people directly than the general of a large army, it is the context and circumstances of many of Che's killings that create the moral gulf between these two men.
 
2013-05-15 06:33:15 PM

skozlaw: BojanglesPaladin: Is that the main thing you object to?

I object to dishonest shiatheels like you insinuating things into comments just so you can try and pick the fight you want to have instead of participating in the discussion that's actually going on.


In an odd way, it all relates.  Righties want different rules and only cry for "equality" when it suits them.  They lost an election?  Fark you, I want my policies enacted.  My logic makes no sense and is clearly harmful?  Fark you, my voice must be heard even though I've made no sense.

These kinds of organizations are not allowed to be political?  Fark you, why are you examining my application?  Just because they're clearly out of the bounds of the rules.  Waaaaaaahhh...you tell everyone to be inclusive, but you won't include me, even though I'm breaking the rules...waaaaah...
 
2013-05-15 06:35:36 PM
BojanglesPaladin: ...I am engaging in a conversation with other Farkers.

Feel free to continue without me.
 
2013-05-15 06:38:27 PM

skozlaw: Feel free to continue without me.


I do. And in case you are new, I freely encourage anyone who does not wish to read my posts to ignore them, or put me on Ignore to avoid the possibility of accidentaly doing so if they offend you so.

Over the years, I have found this to be a mutually beneficial arrangement, and I encourage you to avail yourself of it with my blessings.

Take care.
 
2013-05-15 06:41:15 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I'm not doing that. I was pointing out that "the left" does not reliably distance themselves from their own unsavories either.


There aren't any to distance ourselves from.

Dude, do you ever NOT play the "both sides do it" game? Is there ever a time you just recognize what farkups right-wingers are pretty much consistently throughout history for what it is?
 
2013-05-15 06:41:33 PM

BojanglesPaladin: A Dark Evil Omen: Honest question: Do you consider that a strike against Guevarra?

Not in and of itself, no. There are any number of reasons to kill a number of human beings in an armed conflict. And while one could certainly expect that a man who was an active participant in guerilla warfare would have killed more people directly than the general of a large army, it is the context and circumstances of many of Che's killings that create the moral gulf between these two men.


And yet Washington did not shy away from executions either, nor were most of the people in the Continental Army who engaged in their own atrocities and war crimes against Loyalists ever punished, only deserters and traitors. Many more Americans were executed by Washington and his people than by Guevara, and often for less cause.

War is hell; the lesson should be that we should never NEED people like either George Washington or El Che, but that seems to so often be lost in a search for heroes.
 
2013-05-15 06:42:37 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Many more Americans were executed by Washington and his people than counter-revolutionaries by Guevara


I am grammar good k.
 
2013-05-15 06:45:33 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

SithLord:

 Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Zasteva:
 [img.math-fail.com image 750x600] (ie: Fractal Wrongness, world view wrong at every level)

BojanglesPaladin: Great pic, but do you REALLY think it is wrong to say that liberals groups have also threatened the country and resorted to terrorism?

Or could you maybe clarify more precisely what you mean with your memepic?


Sure -- what I mean by that is that SithLord's post reflects a world view that is so heavily distorted from reality that even from a number of different angles and levels of meaning it is wrong. Give or take a little hyperbole on my part :-)

Some examples:

1. Bill Ayers, despite his criminal activity, was careful not to harm people.
2. Bill Ayers probably had no impact on the course of the war, and certain didn't threaten the very existence of the country
3. He thinks SithLord is a cool name, which throws doubt on his ability to recognize Good vs. Evil
4. He thinks OWS was a liberal group.
5. He thinks OWS threatened the very existence of the country
6. He implies that OWS was looting, raping or pillaging the cities they marched in
7. He doesn't recall "Tea-Party types" blowing up buildings

Now, to your other question, Liberal groups have done acts of civil disobedience which included property damage in the US.

The violent groups that could be considered to have some sort of left wing agenda were the Black Liberation Army, the Weather Underground, and the May 19th Communist Organization.

Communists are not, by definition, Liberals, so the May 19th Communist Organization is obviously out.

BLA was a black nationalist organization, which embraced many of the same ideas as liberals -- anti-imperialist, anti-racist, and anti-sexist. However, they were also anti-capitalist and embraced the socialist concept of class struggle, which puts them outside Liberal ideology.

The Weather Undergound was a revolutionary extremist left wing group whose anti-government radicalism was pretty far removed from Liberal ideology.

So, if you want to argue that left wing extremists have done some really bad things too, you'll get no argument from me, though the number and scale of the attacks have been far lower the right wing extremists. But you both said "liberal", not left wing, and that's a different thing. Left wing extremists are to the left of liberals, i.e.:

right wing extremists -- conservatives -- moderates -- liberals -- left wing extremists
 
2013-05-15 07:09:25 PM

Zasteva: 1. Bill Ayers, despite his criminal activity, was careful not to harm people.


I think that is highly debateable. At best, his compatriots were certainly not.

3. He thinks SithLord is a cool name, which throws doubt on his ability to recognize Good vs. Evil

Yeah. No argument from me on that one.

4. He thinks OWS was a liberal group.


They weren't? Do THEY know that?

7. He doesn't recall "Tea-Party types" blowing up buildings

I don't either.

The violent groups that could be considered to have some sort of left wing agenda were the Black Liberation Army, the Weather Underground, and the May 19th Communist Organization....Communists are not, by definition, Liberals ...they were also anti-capitalist and embraced the socialist concept of class struggle, which puts them outside Liberal ideology...a revolutionary extremist left wing group whose anti-government radicalism was pretty far removed from Liberal ideology.etc. "

There is a clear challenge of shared definitions here. By your selective application of the term "liberal" to exclude any group that is "too" far left, suprisingly none of the groups on your list qualify under your definitions.

Also, you excluded other groups like the Black Panthers, Native American groups, The Ohio 7, various Puerto Rican groups, etc. Again, we have a challenge of definitions for the applicability of "liberal".

But it's also worth pointing out that while you disclaim any attempt to equate "left-wing violent extremists" with "liberal, you seem to be willing to conflate "right-wing violent extremists" with "teabagger types".

So at the end of the day, I think SithLord was overly broad and hyperbolic, but I'm not sure he was fundamentally wrong (in the way suggested) when he pointed out that the left has their own stable of violent extremists seeking to do damage to the country. And whil eI am inclined to agree with you that the word "liberal" was used incorrectly, that's a minor technicality, and by any standard Bill Ayers is considered a liberal today.
 
2013-05-15 07:33:24 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Also, you excluded other groups like the Black Panthers, Native American groups, The Ohio 7, various Puerto Rican groups, etc. Again, we have a challenge of definitions for the applicability of "liberal".


Maybe because we realize you're scraping the bottom of the barrel at best and your point is absurd, yet you keep running with it.
 
2013-05-15 07:54:19 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Zasteva: 1. Bill Ayers, despite his criminal activity, was careful not to harm people.

BojanglesPaladin: I think that is highly debateable. At best, his compatriots were certainly not.


I guess that depends on how far you extend the term "compatriots". If you include the folks from BLA or M19CO then sure. If you just stick to the Weather Underground, they didn't hurt anyone other than themselves. But I guess I should have said "careful not to harm other people".

Zasteva: 4. He thinks OWS was a liberal group.

BojanglesPaladin:
 They weren't? Do THEY know that?

Yeah, we (OWS people) do know that. There were a lot of liberals, to be sure, but there were also also anarchists, socialists, conservatives, and even an ex-Tea Party guy in my OWS groups. OWS hoped to include a broad cross section of society from all political views to insist on wall street accountability and reform. We were disappointed with the Tea Party folks, who we thought would be allies, instead decided to oppose us.

Zasteva: 7. He doesn't recall "Tea-Party types" blowing up buildings

BojanglesPaladin:
 I don't either.

Well, as long as we are being pedantic, I think "Tea-Party types" would include people like Timothy McVeigh and Teri Nicholes -- sure, they predated the Tea Party, but they were certainly cut from the same cloth. But I understand your point. Nobody that I'm aware of who belonged to the Tea Party has blown up a building.

Zasteva: The violent groups that could be considered to have some sort of left wing agenda were the Black Liberation Army, the Weather Underground, and the May 19th Communist Organization....Communists are not, by definition, Liberals ...they were also anti-capitalist and embraced the socialist concept of class struggle, which puts them outside Liberal ideology...a revolutionary extremist left wing group whose anti-government radicalism was pretty far removed from Liberal ideology.etc. "

BojanglesPaladin:
 There is a clear challenge of shared definitions here. By your selective application of the term "liberal" to exclude any group that is "too" far left, suprisingly none of the groups on your list qualify under your definitions.

To be fair to myself, I did exclude "right wing extremists" from "conservatives" in a similar fashion in my little text diagram.

And, I think there has to be a limited meaning to the world "liberal" or it ceases to have meaning. If everyone left of center is "liberal", then how do we distinguish between an average American liberal and a socialist? Come to think of it, that does explain a lot about why so many on the right think Obama is a socialist.

BojanglesPaladin: Also, you excluded other groups like the Black Panthers, Native American groups, The Ohio 7, various Puerto Rican groups, etc. Again, we have a challenge of definitions for the applicability of "liberal".

I would generally accept the Black Panthers as a liberal group. The Ohio 7 were a left-wing Marxist organization, not Liberals. I am not familiar with specific Native American groups or Puerto Rican groups. Which of those are planning to overthrow the government?

But it's also worth pointing out that while you disclaim any attempt to equate "left-wing violent extremists" with "liberal, you seem to be willing to conflate "right-wing violent extremists" with "teabagger types".

Yes, that's probably unfair of me. Most Tea Party members are not violent right wing extremists, and the few that are shouldn't unfairly be lumped together with the Tea Party. The Tea Party does tend to be the more right wing part of conservatives in general though, just like animal rights activists and environmental activists tend to be in the more left wing of the liberals in general. So where they do cross over into extremism, it will be there (on both right and left).

So at the end of the day, I think SithLord was overly broad and hyperbolic, but I'm not sure he was fundamentally wrong (in the way suggested) when he pointed out that the left has their own stable of violent extremists seeking to do damage to the country. And whil eI am inclined to agree with you that the word "liberal" was used incorrectly, that's a minor technicality, and by any standard Bill Ayer ...

As I admitted at the start, I was being hyperbolic myself. And if the discussion had centered around "left-wing" rather than liberal then I probably wouldn't have responded.
 
2013-05-15 07:57:11 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: And yet Washington did not shy away from executions either, nor were most of the people in the Continental Army who engaged in their own atrocities and war crimes against Loyalists ever punished, only deserters and traitors. Many more Americans were executed by Washington and his people than by Guevara, and often for less cause.

War is hell; the lesson should be that we should never NEED people like either George Washington or El Che, but that seems to so often be lost in a search for heroes.


No argument that war is hell,  but surely you can see a distinction between the two in terms of adhering to accepted norms for war?

And that's without even starting on things like Che's book burning and executing of dissedent authors, or establishment of labor camps, not to mention that whole oppressive Cuban regime, or his general bloodthirstiness. Che Guevara worked to establish a brutal and oppressive dictatorship, and gave his life trying to spread it.

George Washington never headed up death squads, never ordered the execution of dissident writers. He presided over the establishment of a system of government that enshrined peacable transition of power, protected its citizens from the tyranny of an oppressive government in a way never before seen, and helped enshrine freedom of speech and of the press and of religion.

So yeah, war is hell, and both men have blood on their hands. Neither man was perfect, and like all of us, they had faults. But to genuinely, earnestly and honestly hold up both men as effectively equal in terms of morals and their actions?

I find that kinda sad. But I thank you for an honest answer, and as I said, how boring would the world be if we all agreed on everything.

That's my time. Be sure to tip the waitress.
 
2013-05-15 08:04:47 PM

BojanglesPaladin: George Washington never headed up death squads, never ordered the execution of dissident writers.


Yeah all those Indians he had a hand in killing and burning their villages don't count.
 
2013-05-15 08:05:43 PM

Zasteva: As I admitted at the start, I was being hyperbolic myself. And if the discussion had centered around "left-wing" rather than liberal then I probably wouldn't have responded.


Fair enough. I wish I had more time to discuss, but it will have to be another time. Thanks for the detailed response, really wish I had more time.

/One small quibble. The Weather Underground did intend to cause harm to other people. They just botched it. Maybe not Ayers (though as we all know he remained famously unrepentant up to 9/11), but Bernadette Dorn certainly. That was one evil biatch. But sub-diving such a small group does not absolve members from culpability and Ayers was on-hand and complicit if not verifiably participatory for the important bits, if not the explosion.

On the whole, I think we are on the same page. Especially in that SithLord is a stupid name. But also on the larger topic. This is probably as a result of being semi-rational.

Have a great evening.
 
2013-05-15 09:53:30 PM
So? Liberal groups don't run around threatening not to pay taxes. That's like complaining that the FBI only investigates terror groups...
 
2013-05-15 11:12:01 PM

BMulligan: Obama's Reptiloid Master: "Perhaps dozens?"

Yeah, that was the line that caught my eye, too. Doesn't really fill me with confidence.

By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.


What's working is the sequester.  We quit spending so much money and the budget deficit shrinks.  There's a real puzzler, huh?
 
2013-05-15 11:42:14 PM
Lets keep focus. None of these groups; liberal or conservative, should have tax exempt status.
 
2013-05-16 12:50:48 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: skozlaw: Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?

Oh, it's a thing. A pretty bad thing. Take heart, though, Obama is reacting appropriately, recognizing that it is indeed a thing.


If, by saying "Obama is reacting appropriately" you mean lying, avoiding responsibility, being opaque, disconnected and divisive, yes, exactly

but just hold on,the oceans will begin to teem with life any minute now
 
2013-05-16 08:13:05 AM

Bungles: As a foreigner, I don't quite get this. Surely a Tea Party group is, by definition, a political entity? And therefore of course should be scrutinised if it claims it isn't for tax purposes.

Does the Communist Party of America have tax exempt status.

And yet, Obama has said it was wrong. Intellectual reporters on the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?


I'm not an American either but I'll have a go:

I think you're missing that the Overton window for the past 30 years has shifted so far away from any concept of Government ever being a positive force that even Liberals don't argue that point.

It is therefore conceded that theonly policies that are acceptable involve shrinking the state* and reducing the tax 'burden'.


*Except when Republicans are in control Eg. DoHS, exceptions prove the rule ya know
 
2013-05-16 08:54:52 AM
This IRS actually targeted around 500 conservative groups for what is basically harassment article pretty much clarifies the problem. Leaves no doubts as to the partisan politics, illegally implemented by the IRS, that tacitly assisted Obama and other liberals in the election cycles.
 
2013-05-16 01:28:05 PM

lantawa: This IRS actually targeted around 500 conservative groups for what is basically harassment article pretty much clarifies the problem. Leaves no doubts as to the partisan politics, illegally implemented by the IRS, that tacitly assisted Obama and other liberals in the election cycles.


[cryingbaby.jpg]

Also, you're welcome to show the class where any of this "harassment' was illegal.

No, your stupid Teabagger link doesn't count, bro.
 
2013-05-16 01:53:41 PM

whidbey: lantawa: This IRS actually targeted around 500 conservative groups for what is basically harassment article pretty much clarifies the problem. Leaves no doubts as to the partisan politics, illegally implemented by the IRS, that tacitly assisted Obama and other liberals in the election cycles.

[cryingbaby.jpg]

Also, you're welcome to show the class where any of this "harassment' was illegal.

No, your stupid Teabagger link doesn't count, bro.


Keep beating that drum. Maybe find a circle. Link DOES TOO count. And thanks for the bro, bro. Fistbump.
 
2013-05-16 04:22:48 PM

lantawa: whidbey: lantawa: This IRS actually targeted around 500 conservative groups for what is basically harassment article pretty much clarifies the problem. Leaves no doubts as to the partisan politics, illegally implemented by the IRS, that tacitly assisted Obama and other liberals in the election cycles.

[cryingbaby.jpg]

Also, you're welcome to show the class where any of this "harassment' was illegal.

No, your stupid Teabagger link doesn't count, bro.

Keep beating that drum. Maybe find a circle. Link DOES TOO count. And thanks for the bro, bro. Fistbump.


Um, no. If you can't provide actual evidence that what the IRS did was illegal, or that even targeting anti-tax groups is unethical, than I suggest you drop the point.
 
2013-05-16 04:39:24 PM

whidbey: lantawa: whidbey: lantawa: This IRS actually targeted around 500 conservative groups for what is basically harassment article pretty much clarifies the problem. Leaves no doubts as to the partisan politics, illegally implemented by the IRS, that tacitly assisted Obama and other liberals in the election cycles.

[cryingbaby.jpg]

Also, you're welcome to show the class where any of this "harassment' was illegal.

No, your stupid Teabagger link doesn't count, bro.

Keep beating that drum. Maybe find a circle. Link DOES TOO count. And thanks for the bro, bro. Fistbump.

Um, no. If you can't provide actual evidence that what the IRS did was illegal, or that even targeting anti-tax groups is unethical, than I suggest you drop the point.


We'll see, won't we...considering the whole goversphere is eyeballing this issue under a legal microscope, We'll just have to wait until the smoke clears. Until then, I suggest you trop the poinp..
 
2013-05-16 04:51:34 PM

lantawa: We'll see, won't we...considering the whole goversphere is eyeballing this issue under a legal microscope, We'll just have to wait until the smoke clears.


You're going to be waiting a long time, then. In other news, threatening to abolish the 16th Amendment is going to get you on the IRS's radar.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some other derpy thread gets submitted where the Tea Party is spinning this as "civil disobedience."
 
2013-05-16 05:14:16 PM

whidbey: lantawa: We'll see, won't we...considering the whole goversphere is eyeballing this issue under a legal microscope, We'll just have to wait until the smoke clears.

You're going to be waiting a long time, then. In other news, threatening to abolish the 16th Amendment is going to get you on the IRS's radar.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some other derpy thread gets submitted where the Tea Party is spinning this as "civil disobedience."


Well, I'm not on board with abolishing the 16th Amendment, so there's that. You think you're going to get last post here, don't you? Good luck with that...
 
Displayed 321 of 321 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report