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.

(Christian Broadcasting Network)   Cincinnati IRS agents say they got their marching orders from Washington -- AH HA I KNEW IT -- ...officials in the IRS home office. ARRGH   (cbn.com) divider line 296
    More: Obvious, Cincinnati IRS  
•       •       •

1740 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jun 2013 at 4:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-07 04:12:34 PM

I've always wondered what the Christian Broadcasting Network's view on tax exemption is. What type of guide might the Christian Broadcasting Network use when it comes to tax exemption?

"Doesn't your teacher pay the "Temple tax"

And Peter replied: "Yes, he does".


"What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes-from their own children or from others?"


"From others," Peter answered. "Then the children are exempt," Jesus said to him, implying that as the son of God, he is exempt from paying God's tax. Then Jesus said:


"But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."




So, it seems like even though Jesus felt he was exempt from paying certain taxes, he paid them anyways.
 
2013-06-07 04:18:23 PM
and darrell issa slams his dick in a drawer again.
 
2013-06-07 04:28:03 PM
And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.
 
2013-06-07 04:35:33 PM

jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.


Obama was so afraid of the Tea Party that he ordered the IRS to not approve any tea party groups' tax exemption applications. And he's counting on all us Fark Libs to hide the evidence for him.

Of course, he's right, we will.
 
2013-06-07 04:35:59 PM

FlashHarry: and darrell issa slams his dick in a drawer again.


Maybe it'll break iff this time.
 
2013-06-07 04:36:41 PM
Iff=off
 
2013-06-07 04:41:14 PM

jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.


i41.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-07 04:46:11 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-07 04:49:11 PM
Pffft, IRSgate is SOOOO last month.

Eavesdropgate is the new hotness right now.
 
2013-06-07 04:53:57 PM
Well, this does mean it isn't over, as Issa will now subpoena a whole bunch more people and docs in his eternal quest to somehow tie this to Obama, and we'll have another week or two of hearings on that.

What I want to know is, what was the full keyword list, anyway? Last I heard was that "Tea Party" and "Patriot" weren't the only ones on the list, but no word on what the rest of it was. Did Issa ever get around to subpoenaing that?
 
2013-06-07 04:54:49 PM

jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.


I bet you swallow Drew's load Mr. Obvious Fark Mod. It's how you got your paid Troll job.
 
2013-06-07 04:56:27 PM

vernonFL: Obama was so afraid of the Tea Party that he ordered the IRS to not approve any tea party groups' tax exemption applications.


And yet they still got approved anyway.

Can Obama do anything right?
 
2013-06-07 05:06:02 PM

Granny_Panties: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

I bet you swallow Drew's load Mr. Obvious Fark Mod. It's how you got your paid Troll job.


Yes, trolls are such a precious resource online that Drew and his 8-man super corporation spend all day rustling jimmies in the politics tab...
 
2013-06-07 05:06:30 PM

Mrtraveler01: vernonFL: Obama was so afraid of the Tea Party that he ordered the IRS to not approve any tea party groups' tax exemption applications.

And yet they still got approved anyway.

Can Obama do anything right?


Remember, he's an evil Communist Marxist Fascist dictator intent on taking away all our freedoms and destroying America.

And he's also the lazies, most ineffectual, most Muslim-y president of all time.

ALL TIME
 
2013-06-07 05:07:15 PM

thismomentinblackhistory: Granny_Panties: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

I bet you swallow Drew's load Mr. Obvious Fark Mod. It's how you got your paid Troll job.

Yes, trolls are such a precious resource online that Drew and his 8-man super corporation spend all day rustling jimmies in the politics tab...


I'd do that if I were him.

/likes when jimmies are rustled.
 
2013-06-07 05:07:23 PM

vernonFL: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Obama was so afraid of the Tea Party that he ordered the IRS to not approve any tea party groups' tax exemption applications. And he's counting on all us Fark Libs to hide the evidence for him.

Of course, he's right, we will.


That has to be the most ineffectual political persecutions ever: these groups were allowed to operate as tax-exempt charities and were not required to disclose their donor lists unless their 1040s were rejected (which they weren't.) The testamony of the affected groups supports this: they did plenty of political work in the interim between application and approval.

This is still a case where I think the IRS screwed up majorly by targetting conservative political groups not political groups of all stripes. However, the harm was delays in approval and requests for more detailed information in the processing of a form they had no legal requirement to file as a 501c4.
 
2013-06-07 05:08:11 PM

Granny_Panties: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

I bet you swallow Drew's load Mr. Obvious Fark Mod. It's how you got your paid Troll job.


As all other Obama worshipers, you are delusional.
 
2013-06-07 05:09:35 PM

Grungehamster: That has to be the most ineffectual political persecutions ever: these groups were allowed to operate as tax-exempt charities and were not required to disclose their donor lists unless their 1040s were rejected (which they weren't.) The testamony of the affected groups supports this: they did plenty of political work in the interim between application and approval.


I wish my comrades would be "persecuted" by being granted non-profit status we're not qualified for instead of... y'know... being shot at and then trotted in front of grand juries in political witchhunts.
 
2013-06-07 05:09:55 PM

vernonFL: So, it seems like even though Jesus felt he was exempt from paying certain taxes, he paid them anyways.


Yep, pay them with counterfeit money. Counterfeit money made out of fish.
 
2013-06-07 05:10:24 PM

Mithiwithi: Well, this does mean it isn't over, as Issa will now subpoena a whole bunch more people and docs in his eternal quest to somehow tie this to Obama, and we'll have another week or two of hearings on that.

What I want to know is, what was the full keyword list, anyway? Last I heard was that "Tea Party" and "Patriot" weren't the only ones on the list, but no word on what the rest of it was. Did Issa ever get around to subpoenaing that?


I have this strong opinion that even less people would give a dark about IRS-gazi if the list was made public.
 
2013-06-07 05:11:01 PM

jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.


What is it today, the alcoholism, the drug addictions, or the strokes?
 
2013-06-07 05:15:55 PM

Mrtraveler01: And yet they still got approved anyway.

Can Obama do anything right?


typically misleading answer

" In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows."

source: usa today
 
2013-06-07 05:15:58 PM
So is G.W. Bush in prison yet for his war crimes?

/Oh yea right. Hes white and therefor part of the rightwing master race of those that shall bring about destruction of the Earth so some Christian f*ckwits can go to heaven.
//Oh and by the way, heaven is in the Middle East, so don't be so quick to nuke it.
 
2013-06-07 05:19:18 PM
And once again the "scandal" is back at square one.

Have I gotten so old that I remember when investigations were to find out what happened and fix them rather then give up correcting them when they don't rise to impeachment standards?

/adjust onion on belt
 
2013-06-07 05:21:20 PM
Do liberals honestly live in a bubble?  Why is subby surprised by this?  It was always the argument from the right that this was larger than 2 rogue agents in cincinatti.  It was always the argument that Benghazi was not about a YouTube video.  It was the liberals leaders pushing those myths.

In regards to the IRS, it was always stated by the GOP two things: a) the targeting was more widespread than one office, b) The White House knew more than they initially reported.  B was proven false quickly with Carney continuing to change when people in the White House knew.  A is being show to also be true.  Why is this a shock to you subby?

The most disconcerting part is still the fact that the IG refuses to investigate the LEAKS OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS to liberals groups like ProPublica.  In fact, they are now hiding behind Nixonian era rules to state they can't let NOW know who leaked their documents.  The leaking of these documents is BY FAR the scariest part of everything.  It is the pure abuse of political power to try and subvert a political opponent.  Yet liberals continue to try and blame the victim for being abused.
 
2013-06-07 05:22:16 PM

the_dude_abides: Mrtraveler01: And yet they still got approved anyway.

Can Obama do anything right?

typically misleading answer

" In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows."

source: usa today


So none of these tea party groups got the tax-exempt status they wanted?
 
2013-06-07 05:23:39 PM

Mrtraveler01: vernonFL: Obama was so afraid of the Tea Party that he ordered the IRS to not approve any tea party groups' tax exemption applications.

And yet they still got approved anyway.

Can Obama do anything right?


It's okay to target political groups you disagree with at extra cost and extra time... as long as the results end the same!  Wow what an ignorant stance you have taken.  Thousands of dollars for groups (shipping costs, printing costs) for materials.  Thousands of dollars for lawyers.  Fear of being charged with perjury on questions like "what is the content of your prayers?".  27 months to approve versus 9 months on average for liberal groups.  The leaking of confidential information by agents to liberal groups.

You are perfectly okay with that.  What an ignorant fool.
 
2013-06-07 05:24:50 PM

the_dude_abides: Mrtraveler01: And yet they still got approved anyway.

Can Obama do anything right?

typically misleading answer

" In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows."

source: usa today


Since not a one of them should have been approved, I find your concern hilarious
 
2013-06-07 05:28:08 PM
What exactly is wrong with giving extra scrutiny to those who give reason to have extra scrutiny? The tax-exempt status isn't supposed to go to political organizations so an organization with the words 'tea party' in their name should raise a red flag and generate extra attention just like wearing a t-shirt with the word 'terrorist' on the front while trying to go through security at an airport will get you extra attention.
 
2013-06-07 05:29:05 PM

MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: vernonFL: Obama was so afraid of the Tea Party that he ordered the IRS to not approve any tea party groups' tax exemption applications.

And yet they still got approved anyway.

Can Obama do anything right?

It's okay to target political groups you disagree with at extra cost and extra time... as long as the results end the same!  Wow what an ignorant stance you have taken.  Thousands of dollars for groups (shipping costs, printing costs) for materials.  Thousands of dollars for lawyers.  Fear of being charged with perjury on questions like "what is the content of your prayers?".  27 months to approve versus 9 months on average for liberal groups.  The leaking of confidential information by agents to liberal groups.

You are perfectly okay with that.  What an ignorant fool.


No. I think all political groups should face the same scrutiny the tea party faced.

Anything dealing with politics should automatically be suspect. Whether they be conservative or liberal.
 
2013-06-07 05:29:08 PM

jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.


Just like your mom
 
2013-06-07 05:31:08 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Granny_Panties: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

I bet you swallow Drew's load Mr. Obvious Fark Mod. It's how you got your paid Troll job.

As all other Obama worshipers, you are delusional.


Looking at the facts and making a claim that is backed up by those facts does not equal "Obama Worshiping" Keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-06-07 05:31:23 PM
Long story short. I think we should stop treating tax exempt status like can and only give them to groups that really deserve it (ie: non political ones)
 
2013-06-07 05:32:52 PM

Befuddled: What exactly is wrong with giving extra scrutiny to those who give reason to have extra scrutiny? The tax-exempt status isn't supposed to go to political organizations so an organization with the words 'tea party' in their name should raise a red flag and generate extra attention just like wearing a t-shirt with the word 'terrorist' on the front while trying to go through security at an airport will get you extra attention.


And never mind that many, many more "liberal" groups (liberal meaning not-obviously-conservative-political) were scrutinized, and that the scrutiny of the Obviously-Political-And-Therefore-Ought-to-be-investigated groups was justified.
 
2013-06-07 05:34:33 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Since not a one of them should have been approved, I find your concern hilarious


if that's the case, then progressive groups should be held to the same standard, but weren't
 
2013-06-07 05:35:14 PM

Garaba: Mithiwithi: Well, this does mean it isn't over, as Issa will now subpoena a whole bunch more people and docs in his eternal quest to somehow tie this to Obama, and we'll have another week or two of hearings on that.

What I want to know is, what was the full keyword list, anyway? Last I heard was that "Tea Party" and "Patriot" weren't the only ones on the list, but no word on what the rest of it was. Did Issa ever get around to subpoenaing that?

I have this strong opinion that even less people would give a dark about IRS-gazi if the list was made public.


I believe the internal review that pointed to the three terms as blantantly biased; if "liberal" or "progress" had been on there you would have to figure it would warrant a mention, if only a plea of defense by Ms. Lerner.

Personally, I don't want a full list of criteria the IRS uses when doing any sort of review/audit to be public, because it essentially completely ruins the ability of the IRS to catch people who are violating the law who aren't CYA because their scam doesn't have a political appearance.

Honestly, the biggest problem in this is it's really hard to see where issue advocacy ends and politics begins. Any group dedicated to social welfare is going to have a vested interest in seeing certain policies enacted, repealed, or kept in place. Virtually everyone believes that their preferred politics will make the world a better place for most people: isn't that an assumption that political activism is a form of bettering the welfare of the public?
 
2013-06-07 05:35:41 PM

Zeppelininthesky: jehovahs witness protection: Granny_Panties: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

I bet you swallow Drew's load Mr. Obvious Fark Mod. It's how you got your paid Troll job.

As all other Obama worshipers, you are delusional.

Looking at the facts and making a claim that is backed up by those facts does not equal "Obama Worshiping" Keep farking that chicken.


Your mom's thong didn't fit the chicken, so I stuck to farking your mom.
 
2013-06-07 05:38:16 PM

Mrtraveler01: So none of these tea party groups got the tax-exempt status they wanted?


first you give a misleading answer, now you're gonna play word games to rationalize it.

these conservative groups had their applications in limbo for years at a time for no good reason. you think it's ok just because some were eventually approved?
 
2013-06-07 05:38:42 PM

the_dude_abides: Mrtraveler01: And yet they still got approved anyway.

Can Obama do anything right?

typically misleading answer

" In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked. That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows."

source: usa today


So we've already moved so far down the slope that the extent of the scandal is that the IRS was slow.  No, really slow.

We need a better opposition party.  The GOP can't even wrangle up a halfway decent scandal anymore.
 
2013-06-07 05:40:31 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Granny_Panties: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

I bet you swallow Drew's load Mr. Obvious Fark Mod. It's how you got your paid Troll job.

As all other Obama worshipers, you are delusional.


You sound really ignorant when you call us Obama worshippers.  We don't worship Obama.  We sacrifice children to Obama, but I wouldn't really call that worship.
 
2013-06-07 05:41:33 PM

MyRandomName: Fear of being charged with perjury on questions like "what is the content of your prayers?".


Mother Sarah, we ask for your Divine guidance. Lead us to the promised land, a land of guns and deep fried butter. Amen.
 
2013-06-07 05:42:43 PM

MyRandomName: Do liberals honestly live in a bubble?


Turn off the projector.
 
2013-06-07 05:43:27 PM

super_grass: Pffft, IRSgate is SOOOO last month.

Eavesdropgate is the new hotness right now.


Unfortunately the public is so tired of the last few years of the GOP's fabricated bullshiat "scandals" that now that there's actually something worth getting concerned about, no one really cares.
 
2013-06-07 05:43:36 PM

Garaba: Mithiwithi: What I want to know is, what was the full keyword list, anyway? Last I heard was that "Tea Party" and "Patriot" weren't the only ones on the list, but no word on what the rest of it was. Did Issa ever get around to subpoenaing that?

I have this strong opinion that even less people would give a dark about IRS-gazi if the list was made public.


Well, I kind of have that opinion too, but since my opinion isn't based on any specific evidence, I'd much rather not speculate too hard on what was on the list. I mean, it's possible that it really was all conservative-oriented keywords, and liberal ("occupy", "progress", "labor") and more-neutral-but-politically-suggestive ("election", "vote", "freedom") keywords weren't on there.

But either way, I would think the full keyword list is a crucial bit of data on the full scope of the flaws in IRS policy, and it's continuing absence from public view is one of the key reasons that I'm growing less and less concerned about this whole thing.
 
2013-06-07 05:43:48 PM

Mrtraveler01: Long story short. I think we should stop treating tax exempt status like can and only give them to groups that really deserve it (ie: non political ones)


That would kill the NAACP and most labor unions.
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-07 05:44:40 PM

jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.


Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.
 
2013-06-07 05:45:34 PM

smitty04: Mrtraveler01: Long story short. I think we should stop treating tax exempt status like can and only give them to groups that really deserve it (ie: non political ones)

That would kill the NAACP and most labor unions.


And?
 
2013-06-07 05:46:54 PM

FlashHarry: and darrell issa slams his dick in a drawer again.


That drawer isn't going to fark itself.
 
2013-06-07 05:47:44 PM

Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.


Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.


Liberal groups were approved twice as fast. WAIT...Ten times as fast....But I'll only quote you twice.
 
2013-06-07 05:48:06 PM

Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.


THIS.
 
2013-06-07 05:48:12 PM

Hastor: So we've already moved so far down the slope that the extent of the scandal is that the IRS was slow.  No, really slow.


right, it was just slow service. keep telling yourself that.
 
2013-06-07 05:48:56 PM

exatron: FlashHarry: and darrell issa slams his dick in a drawer again.

That drawer isn't going to fark itself.


Especially since there is a Chicken in that drawer too.
 
2013-06-07 05:49:52 PM
The blame for this 'scandal' lies on Congress and the Supreme Court for allowing political groups to have tax-exempt status.

I thought conservatives were so set against foreign money/influence in our politics. With the Citizens United ruling allowing anonymous donors to these PACs that can buy ad time in political races, the conservatives should be screaming mad (unless they're hypocrites and don't really mean what they say).
 
2013-06-07 05:50:56 PM

Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.


Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem
 
2013-06-07 05:53:04 PM

Stile4aly: jehovahs witness protection: Granny_Panties: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

I bet you swallow Drew's load Mr. Obvious Fark Mod. It's how you got your paid Troll job.

As all other Obama worshipers, you are delusional.

You sound really ignorant when you call us Obama worshippers.  We don't worship Obama.  We sacrifice children to Obama, but I wouldn't really call that worship.


Yeah, that's just brunch.
 
2013-06-07 05:53:07 PM

Befuddled: What exactly is wrong with giving extra scrutiny to those who give reason to have extra scrutiny? The tax-exempt status isn't supposed to go to political organizations so an organization with the words 'tea party' in their name should raise a red flag and generate extra attention just like wearing a t-shirt with the word 'terrorist' on the front while trying to go through security at an airport will get you extra attention.


They are qualified to be tax-exempt, they just should have filed as a 527 if their goals were primarily political. Both just as tax-exempt, the difference is whether or not they have to report their donors and the amount they donated to the FEC.
 
2013-06-07 05:54:42 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Liberal groups were approved twice as fast. WAIT...Ten times as fast....But I'll only quote you twice.


Groups like Feed the Children are not political. Groups like TEA Baggers Hate Obama are political. I will let you guess which one is going to be approved first.
 
2013-06-07 05:54:45 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Liberal groups were approved twice as fast. WAIT...Ten times as fast....But I'll only quote you twice.


Prove it.
 
2013-06-07 05:56:19 PM

exatron: Stile4aly: jehovahs witness protection: Granny_Panties: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

I bet you swallow Drew's load Mr. Obvious Fark Mod. It's how you got your paid Troll job.

As all other Obama worshipers, you are delusional.

You sound really ignorant when you call us Obama worshippers.  We don't worship Obama.  We sacrifice children to Obama, but I wouldn't really call that worship.

Yeah, that's just brunch.


Those abortions aren't gonna eat themselves...
 
2013-06-07 05:56:21 PM

Wessoman: Aaaaand keep telling yourself that there was a scandal in the first place. The only real thing the IRS did wrong was not update their operating procedures after the Citizens United decision. That's it.


weird, that's not what the IG report says
 
2013-06-07 05:58:03 PM

ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem


They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.
 
2013-06-07 05:59:14 PM

CynicalLA: Wessoman: And prove us correct? That one of the Fark Mods is a Right Wing shill? I don't think so compadre.

I agree with you and think you are right.  I've had all my posts erased a couple times and been banned as well.  It was just a warning.


Remember back in the days when Conservatives could actually win arguments with ideas and facts, and not resort to voter purges, gerrymandering, misinformation, lies of omission and Brooks Bros. Rioting? Yeah, when they stopped doing that I stopped being Republican. End of.

jehovahs witness protection: Liberal groups were approved twice as fast. WAIT...Ten times as fast....But I'll only quote you twice.


[Citation Needed]

(And I would love to hear what you consider "Liberal Groups". Like Zep said, groups like "Feed the Children" are not Political.
 
2013-06-07 06:01:00 PM

the_dude_abides: Wessoman: Aaaaand keep telling yourself that there was a scandal in the first place. The only real thing the IRS did wrong was not update their operating procedures after the Citizens United decision. That's it.

weird, that's not what the IG report says


Not sure you actually read the IG report

"The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued".

The actual report is in the article:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/read-the-i n spector-general-report-on-the-irs-scandal/
 
2013-06-07 06:02:10 PM

buck1138: exatron: Stile4aly: jehovahs witness protection: Granny_Panties: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

I bet you swallow Drew's load Mr. Obvious Fark Mod. It's how you got your paid Troll job.

As all other Obama worshipers, you are delusional.

You sound really ignorant when you call us Obama worshippers.  We don't worship Obama.  We sacrifice children to Obama, but I wouldn't really call that worship.

Yeah, that's just brunch.

Those abortions aren't gonna eat themselves...


I would like an abortion sandwich on rye, extra spicy mustard.
 
2013-06-07 06:02:26 PM

MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: vernonFL: Obama was so afraid of the Tea Party that he ordered the IRS to not approve any tea party groups' tax exemption applications.

And yet they still got approved anyway.

Can Obama do anything right?

It's okay to target political groups you disagree with at extra cost and extra time... as long as the results end the same!  Wow what an ignorant stance you have taken.  Thousands of dollars for groups (shipping costs, printing costs) for materials.  Thousands of dollars for lawyers.  Fear of being charged with perjury on questions like "what is the content of your prayers?".  27 months to approve versus 9 months on average for liberal groups.  The leaking of confidential information by agents to liberal groups.

You are perfectly okay with that.  What an ignorant fool.


Yeah, I don't think it was a question of the contents of prayers, as much as the content " of meeting with various PACs advocating various election policies and campaigns" that these charitable organizations just testified that they did while avoiding doing any charity work.
 
2013-06-07 06:02:52 PM

Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.


And if they also adopted a highway or something then they didn't break the law.  And yes even stupid stuff like preaching abstinence only sex-ed counts
 
2013-06-07 06:05:30 PM
GOP: I promise we'll tie this to Obama somehow... just give us some more time. Please note, we don't actually care about what happened. We just want to tie it to Obama
 
2013-06-07 06:06:31 PM

ShadowKamui: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

And if they also adopted a highway or something then they didn't break the law.  And yes even stupid stuff like preaching abstinence only sex-ed counts


Except, they don't care about such things.
 
2013-06-07 06:09:03 PM
These Tea Party groups could still function without tax-exempt status. The only reason they applied for it was to keep from disclosing who their donors are.

Which says a lot about them to me than this "scandal" does.
 
2013-06-07 06:09:45 PM

Wessoman: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

THIS.


This....is not true.

Depends what the definition of "be political" that you use
 
2013-06-07 06:10:39 PM

Zeppelininthesky: They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads


This is something I've always wanted to bring up about 501c's. Is there a mechanism of review for 501c's? I mean, I think that application for a tax exempt status should only last two years, and every single time there must be a review. If the organization strays too much from their intended mission statement, the tax-exempt status should be revoked. I would wager a lot of tea party organizations would be purged off the list this way.

But I brought this up a couple of days ago in the Komen thread. Basically, groups like Komen, Peta, MADD, used to be about one issue, got their 501c status, and have a completely different mission statement. Komen used to be about breast cancer research, but now it's a marketing tool and had briefly dabbled into politics (Which, of course, was a disaster). MADD went from taking keys away from drunks to being quasi-facist neoprohibitionists. And Peta went from being an animal rights advocacy group to some Vegan sexist cult.

I see a lot of Tea Party groups in the same light. Anti-Tax awareness groups, on paper, becoming hyperpolitical advocacy groups after earning their 501c status. What bothers me about this scandal is the chilling effect. Now, in general, there will be far less scruitiny on 501c groups, period.
 
2013-06-07 06:11:37 PM
Zeppelininthesky: Not sure you actually read the IG report

"The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued".

The actual report is in the article:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/read-the-i n spector-general-report-on-the-irs-scandal/


you seem confused. you said the only real thing the IRS did wrong is not update their operating procedures, but your quote above points out very clearly that they used inappropriate targeting criteria that was based on political affiliation. which is a lot closer to what i said.
 
2013-06-07 06:11:56 PM

Mrtraveler01: These Tea Party groups could still function without tax-exempt status. The only reason they applied for it was to keep from disclosing who their donors are.

Which says a lot about them to me than this "scandal" does.


Are you saying that a private enterprise that is not tax exempt has to disclose who donates money to them?
 
2013-06-07 06:12:01 PM

Befuddled: What exactly is wrong with giving extra scrutiny to those who give reason to have extra scrutiny? The tax-exempt status isn't supposed to go to political organizations so an organization with the words 'tea party' in their name should raise a red flag and generate extra attention just like wearing a t-shirt with the word 'terrorist' on the front while trying to go through security at an airport will get you extra attention.


Now hush! That is applying logic to this. We can't have that. It isn't as sensational as saying that the IRS, hated by almost everyone, is targeting precious Tea Party snowflakes.
 
2013-06-07 06:12:55 PM

Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

And if they also adopted a highway or something then they didn't break the law.  And yes even stupid stuff like preaching abstinence only sex-ed counts

Except, they don't care about such things.


That's what the enforcement division is for to insure they are doing whatever non-political mission statement they put on the form.
 
2013-06-07 06:12:55 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: This....is not true.

Depends what the definition of "be political" that you use


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-07 06:15:50 PM

the_dude_abides: you seem confused. you said the only real thing the IRS did wrong is not update their operating procedures, but your quote above points out very clearly that they used inappropriate targeting criteria that was based on political affiliation. which is a lot closer to what i said.


The "Targeting Criteria" was based on a world before Citizens United. I don't expect you to figure it out, especially since the flood of Tea Party 501c's occured AFTER the SCOTUS decision.

Of course, keep believing that one thing had nothing to do with the other.
 
2013-06-07 06:17:14 PM

the_dude_abides: Zeppelininthesky: Not sure you actually read the IG report

"The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued".

The actual report is in the article:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/read-the-i n spector-general-report-on-the-irs-scandal/

you seem confused. you said the only real thing the IRS did wrong is not update their operating procedures, but your quote above points out very clearly that they used inappropriate targeting criteria that was based on political affiliation. which is a lot closer to what i said.


Which is an operating procedure. They are not allowed to use the keywords because it can be bias. There is literally no evidence that these keywords were used in a political way.
 
2013-06-07 06:17:45 PM

Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.


It is a huge stretch to say they lied by being primarily political

If a group gets approved in September and is Political for the first two months and then non political for the next ten months your viewpoint on how political they are would depend on when you looked.

It isn't a lie if they start being political. You have to judge them over a period of time.
 
2013-06-07 06:17:59 PM
Didn't the IRS target over 200 liberal groups? I didn't see that in the article.
 
2013-06-07 06:17:59 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: These Tea Party groups could still function without tax-exempt status. The only reason they applied for it was to keep from disclosing who their donors are.

Which says a lot about them to me than this "scandal" does.

Are you saying that a private enterprise that is not tax exempt has to disclose who donates money to them?


You don't know what a 501(c)(4) organization actually entails huh?
 
2013-06-07 06:19:51 PM

Wessoman: tenpoundsofcheese: This....is not true.

Depends what the definition of "be political" that you use


Meh

You lied when you said they can't be political.
 
2013-06-07 06:19:59 PM

Wessoman: Zeppelininthesky: They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads

This is something I've always wanted to bring up about 501c's. Is there a mechanism of review for 501c's? I mean, I think that application for a tax exempt status should only last two years, and every single time there must be a review. If the organization strays too much from their intended mission statement, the tax-exempt status should be revoked. I would wager a lot of tea party organizations would be purged off the list this way.

But I brought this up a couple of days ago in the Komen thread. Basically, groups like Komen, Peta, MADD, used to be about one issue, got their 501c status, and have a completely different mission statement. Komen used to be about breast cancer research, but now it's a marketing tool and had briefly dabbled into politics (Which, of course, was a disaster). MADD went from taking keys away from drunks to being quasi-facist neoprohibitionists. And Peta went from being an animal rights advocacy group to some Vegan sexist cult.

I see a lot of Tea Party groups in the same light. Anti-Tax awareness groups, on paper, becoming hyperpolitical advocacy groups after earning their 501c status. What bothers me about this scandal is the chilling effect. Now, in general, there will be far less scruitiny on 501c groups, period.


I guess it depends on the type of 501(c). There are quite a few, and some have more rules than others. I think this "scandal" has brought this issue to light. I am hoping the IRS will start looking at groups that stray from the rules.
 
2013-06-07 06:20:58 PM

Grungehamster: I believe the internal review that pointed to the three terms as blantantly biased; if "liberal" or "progress" had been on there you would have to figure it would warrant a mention, if only a plea of defense by Ms. Lerner.


Except that Ms. Lerner took the fifth and gave only a general plea of innocence.  She's subject to an ongoing criminal investigation on the subject; if she takes the stand there, perhaps she (or more generally the counsel for the IRS as a whole) will give more details as part of the legal defense.

Personally, I don't want a full list of criteria the IRS uses when doing any sort of review/audit to be public, because it essentially completely ruins the ability of the IRS to catch people who are violating the law who aren't CYA because their scam doesn't have a political appearance.

I certainly agree when it comes to current and active audit policies.  However, we're discussing a policy that was abolished and is under public review because it is flawed.

And let's make no mistake - a keyword-based approach to selecting groups for review  is flawed.  It fails as an objective criterion for two reasons: (1) it's too easy to omit relevant keywords - even if a good-faith effort were made to compile a balanced list, it'd be too easy to inadvertently omit relevant ones and thus introduce an unintended bias; and (2) even with a good list of keywords, it has a systematic error in that it only catches groups that are poorly-named, thus applying weaker scrutiny to groups that were attempting to game the c4 system but were more savvy in picking a name (or just happened to not stumble onto any of the keywords).

Item (2), incidentally, is the reason that it's still conceivable that the policy was not intended to target conservative groups over liberal ones but nevertheless ended up doing so; it just so happened that there was no liberal movement that was as simultaneously popular and organized as the Tea Party (the Occupy movement has been pretty disorganized - it wouldn't surprise me if very few Occupy groups ever got incorporated at all, much less applying for c4 status), and therefore there was no liberal-oriented keyword or set of keywords that would get as many hits.
 
2013-06-07 06:22:33 PM
 
2013-06-07 06:23:08 PM

Wessoman: The "Targeting Criteria" was based on a world before Citizens United. I don't expect you to figure it out, especially since the flood of Tea Party 501c's occured AFTER the SCOTUS decision.

Of course, keep believing that one thing had nothing to do with the other.


so how is it that "organizing for action" got 501c status? they came after citizens united. isn't that like dividing by zero in your silly little world?
 
2013-06-07 06:23:29 PM
img542.imageshack.us
 
2013-06-07 06:24:18 PM
Unionized Government Employees don't like TaxPayer/Citizens Rights Groups.  In fact they actively bust said groups balls whenever they can.

REPUBLICANS:  The fact that this surprises you is indicative of how out of touch you are.  Expect it, it's going to get worse.  You don't get to attack the them with impunity. Like Guido the pimp said, "Don't fark with a man's livelihood".

DEMOCRATS:  Stop defending this.  It makes you look like John Lovitz's Pathological Liar character.

We're no long a nation of laws.  Both sides wanted this, battle lines are being drawn.  Here we go.
 
2013-06-07 06:25:16 PM
I'm not sure Obama needs all the protection and diversion.

Simply let them root out all the dumbasses involved in this in Cincinnati and Washington and let them taste life in the private sector.
 
2013-06-07 06:26:24 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: You lied when you said they can't be political.


Nope. Political advocacy is one thing. For example, MADD lobbying congress to adopt tougher penalties for drunk driving. But the Tea Party's 501c activities, for example, would be completely illegal before Citizens United. Political advocacy for an issue is one thing. It would be a lie to say that the Tea Party is a single issue organization. In many ways, it's part and parcel of the GOP. (For example, does the GOP have a MADD Caucus? A Peta Caucus? Did the Democratic party have an Acorn Caucus?)

Since you have a real problem with facts, it's a bit funny to see you calling me a liar.
 
2013-06-07 06:28:12 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

It is a huge stretch to say they lied by being primarily political

If a group gets approved in September and is Political for the first two months and then non political for the next ten months your viewpoint on how political they are would depend on when you looked.

It isn't a lie if they start being political. You have to judge them over a period of time.


Yeah, no:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-cha fing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-cha fing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?_r=0
 
2013-06-07 06:29:12 PM

the_dude_abides: so how is it that "organizing for action" got 501c status? they came after citizens united. isn't that like dividing by zero in your silly little world?


DERP. So if you do it, it's OK, but if the evil blah president uses the same weapons against you, and better, suddenly it's EVIL.

How about following my lead, overturning Citizens United and keep big money out of Politics? You with me, or do you still want to fark that dead chicken?
 
2013-06-07 06:29:37 PM
 Hmm....a link from the Christian Broadcasting Network...seems legit!
 
2013-06-07 06:31:11 PM

Wessoman: You with me, or do you still want to fark that dead chicken?


That's a hard one without seeing the chicken.
 
2013-06-07 06:35:19 PM

the_dude_abides: Wessoman: The "Targeting Criteria" was based on a world before Citizens United. I don't expect you to figure it out, especially since the flood of Tea Party 501c's occured AFTER the SCOTUS decision.

Of course, keep believing that one thing had nothing to do with the other.

so how is it that "organizing for action" got 501c status? they came after citizens united. isn't that like dividing by zero in your silly little world?


From their website:

Organizing for ActionStatement of PurposeOrganizing for Action is a nonprofit organization established to support President Obama in achieving enactment of the national agenda Americans voted for on Election Day 2012. OFA will advocate for these policies throughout the country and will mobilize citizens of all parties and diverse points to speak out for speedy passage and effective implementation of this program, including gun violence prevention, sensible environmental policies to address climate change and immigration reform. In addition, OFA will encourage the formation of chapters that will be dedicated at the grassroots level to this program, but also committed to identifying and working progressive change on a range of issues at the state and local level. In carrying its work, OFA will operate as a "social welfare" organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.
 
2013-06-07 06:38:36 PM

cc_rider: Hmm....a link from the Christian Broadcasting Network...seems legit!


Here's an AP story that says two Cincinnati IRS people say they were being monitored by D.C.
 
2013-06-07 06:39:31 PM

CynicalLA: Wessoman: You with me, or do you still want to fark that dead chicken?

That's a hard one without seeing the chicken.


Well, Republicans are naturally inclined to stick their genitals deep within any available poultry.
 
2013-06-07 06:40:03 PM

Cletus C.: cc_rider: Hmm....a link from the Christian Broadcasting Network...seems legit!

Here's an AP story that says two Cincinnati IRS people say they were being monitored by D.C.


From your article "Investigators, who are still in the early stages of their probe, have not uncovered any direct evidence that senior officials in Washington ordered the agents to target tea party groups, or why they may have done so. "
 
2013-06-07 06:41:36 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: These Tea Party groups could still function without tax-exempt status. The only reason they applied for it was to keep from disclosing who their donors are.

Which says a lot about them to me than this "scandal" does.

Are you saying that a private enterprise that is not tax exempt has to disclose who donates money to them?

You don't know what a 501(c)(4) organization actually entails huh?


You said the only reason they applied for tax exempt status was so they don't have to disclose their donors

Are you now changing your statement or do you stick with that?
 
2013-06-07 06:42:10 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: cc_rider: Hmm....a link from the Christian Broadcasting Network...seems legit!

Here's an AP story that says two Cincinnati IRS people say they were being monitored by D.C.

From your article "Investigators, who are still in the early stages of their probe, have not uncovered any direct evidence that senior officials in Washington ordered the agents to target tea party groups, or why they may have done so. "


Yes. That's in the article. Other stuff too.
 
2013-06-07 06:44:03 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: These Tea Party groups could still function without tax-exempt status. The only reason they applied for it was to keep from disclosing who their donors are.

Which says a lot about them to me than this "scandal" does.

Are you saying that a private enterprise that is not tax exempt has to disclose who donates money to them?

You don't know what a 501(c)(4) organization actually entails huh?

You said the only reason they applied for tax exempt status was so they don't have to disclose their donors

Are you now changing your statement or do you stick with that?


I meant to say the 501(c)(4) status that they requested.

That's the main reason all of these groups requested 501(c)(4) status in the first place. This is pretty common knowledge.

That being said, they didn't even have to apply for it in the first place, they could have 501(c)(4) status without getting permission from the IRS.
 
2013-06-07 06:44:26 PM

the_dude_abides: Wessoman: The "Targeting Criteria" was based on a world before Citizens United. I don't expect you to figure it out, especially since the flood of Tea Party 501c's occured AFTER the SCOTUS decision.

Of course, keep believing that one thing had nothing to do with the other.

so how is it that "organizing for action" got 501c status? they came after citizens united. isn't that like dividing by zero in your silly little world?


The *name* didn't exist before Citizens United, but the organization did.
 
2013-06-07 06:46:32 PM
Huh, looks like JWP and Ten Pounds of Dick Cheese are in here doing their jobs.

Keep it up, Obama's numbers just keep going higher.
 
2013-06-07 06:50:09 PM

CynicalLA: Wessoman: And prove us correct? That one of the Fark Mods is a Right Wing shill? I don't think so compadre.

I agree with you and think you are right.  I've had all my posts erased a couple times and been banned as well.  It was just a warning.


Hell, I had a post deleted a week or two ago because I said something mean about Steve Perry from Journey.
 
2013-06-07 06:51:09 PM

iaazathot: Huh, looks like JWP and Ten Pounds of Dick Cheese are in here doing their jobs.

Keep it up, Obama's numbers just keep going higher.


How many people does Obama need to fire before you get the point?
 
2013-06-07 06:53:16 PM

Cletus C.: iaazathot: Huh, looks like JWP and Ten Pounds of Dick Cheese are in here doing their jobs.

Keep it up, Obama's numbers just keep going higher.

How many people does Obama need to fire before you get the point?


What is the point again?
 
2013-06-07 06:56:26 PM

Mrtraveler01: Cletus C.: iaazathot: Huh, looks like JWP and Ten Pounds of Dick Cheese are in here doing their jobs.

Keep it up, Obama's numbers just keep going higher.

How many people does Obama need to fire before you get the point?

What is the point again?


That the IRS actually did something seriously wrong here
 
2013-06-07 06:56:39 PM

Mrtraveler01: Cletus C.: iaazathot: Huh, looks like JWP and Ten Pounds of Dick Cheese are in here doing their jobs.

Keep it up, Obama's numbers just keep going higher.

How many people does Obama need to fire before you get the point?

What is the point again?


You don't use your government power and position to target by name groups from one side only of the political spectrum.
 
2013-06-07 06:56:46 PM

Mrtraveler01: What is the point again?


I guess his point is Obama is an evil Blah president that makes angry old white men feel all icky inside because we are woefully behind the times, and that none of these "Scandals" that we throw at him seem to gain any traction, namely because we are obstructionist anti-American shills anyways and the public sees right through the modern GOP.
 
2013-06-07 06:58:27 PM

the_dude_abides: these conservative groups had their applications in limbo for years at a time for no good reason. you think it's ok just because some were eventually approved?


Actually, all of them were eventually approved. And they were all permitted to carry on as 501(c)(4) organizations during the pendency of their applications. If this was an attempt by the administration to silence the teabaggers, it was pretty inept.
 
2013-06-07 06:59:04 PM

Wessoman: Mrtraveler01: What is the point again?

I guess his point is Obama is an evil Blah president that makes angry old white men feel all icky inside because we are woefully behind the times, and that none of these "Scandals" that we throw at him seem to gain any traction, namely because we are obstructionist anti-American shills anyways and the public sees right through the modern GOP.


Let's see.

Race card - check and double check
 
2013-06-07 06:59:23 PM

ShadowKamui: That the IRS actually did something seriously wrong here.


Did the IRS do wrong? Yes, namely, not updating their operating procedures in a Post-Citizens United world.

Are those mistakes being addressed and fixed? Yes.

Is Obama at fault in any of this? No.

Is the GOP trying to turn this into a partisan witch hunt? Oh yell yes. Anything to destroy the credibility of the blah president.

Is it working? NOPE.
 
2013-06-07 07:00:56 PM

Cletus C.: Let's see.

Race card - check and double check


Triple check. I am using the race card because I see no other reason behind the GOP's nearly irrational demonization of Barack Obama. It's like Cobra Commander bad now, bro.

So pardon me for trying to quantify the unquantifiable.
 
2013-06-07 07:02:37 PM

Wessoman: Cletus C.: Let's see.

Race card - check and double check

Triple check. I am using the race card because I see no other reason behind the GOP's nearly irrational demonization of Barack Obama. It's like Cobra Commander bad now, bro.

So pardon me for trying to quantify the unquantifiable.


You are not on Obama's side on this one. Why? Because he's ...
 
2013-06-07 07:02:44 PM

Wessoman: DERP. So if you do it, it's OK, but if the evil blah president uses the same weapons against you, and better, suddenly it's EVIL.

How about following my lead, overturning Citizens United and keep big money out of Politics? You with me, or do you still want to fark that dead chicken?


that's cute, NOW you wanna take the high road and stop the corruption. not during the last two years, when your side was unscrupulously gaming the system and targeting the opposition, but now, after the election and after the democrats got caught with their pants down in the middle of the scandal. how very noble of you.

and of course, you still have the nerve of playing both the victim AND the race card. wow.
 
2013-06-07 07:02:46 PM

ShadowKamui: Mrtraveler01: Cletus C.: iaazathot: Huh, looks like JWP and Ten Pounds of Dick Cheese are in here doing their jobs.

Keep it up, Obama's numbers just keep going higher.

How many people does Obama need to fire before you get the point?

What is the point again?

That the IRS actually did something seriously wrong here


Please show the class what they did, other than use a "keyword" to help them root out groups that were clearly political in nature?
 
2013-06-07 07:05:58 PM

Cletus C.: Mrtraveler01: Cletus C.: iaazathot: Huh, looks like JWP and Ten Pounds of Dick Cheese are in here doing their jobs.

Keep it up, Obama's numbers just keep going higher.

How many people does Obama need to fire before you get the point?

What is the point again?

You don't use your government power and position to target by name groups from one side only of the political spectrum.


Show us the exact evidence that this is what actually happened. Issa can't find any evidence.The IG Report can't find any evidence. Unless you have special access, I know you can't come up with any evidence.
 
2013-06-07 07:06:17 PM

Cletus C.: You don't use your government power and position to target by name groups from one side only of the political spectrum.


Good thing they didn't do that.
 
2013-06-07 07:09:04 PM

Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Mrtraveler01: Cletus C.: iaazathot: Huh, looks like JWP and Ten Pounds of Dick Cheese are in here doing their jobs.

Keep it up, Obama's numbers just keep going higher.

How many people does Obama need to fire before you get the point?

What is the point again?

That the IRS actually did something seriously wrong here

Please show the class what they did, other than use a "keyword" to help them root out groups that were clearly political in nature?


This guy has volunteered to explain it to you.

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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of the public's trust, and that's especially true for the IRS. The IRS must apply the law in a fair and impartial way, and its employees must act with utmost integrity. This report shows that some of its employees failed that test.
 
2013-06-07 07:09:41 PM

the_dude_abides: Wessoman: DERP. So if you do it, it's OK, but if the evil blah president uses the same weapons against you, and better, suddenly it's EVIL.

How about following my lead, overturning Citizens United and keep big money out of Politics? You with me, or do you still want to fark that dead chicken?

that's cute, NOW you wanna take the high road and stop the corruption. not during the last two years, when your side was unscrupulously gaming the system and targeting the opposition, but now, after the election and after the democrats got caught with their pants down in the middle of the scandal. how very noble of you.

and of course, you still have the nerve of playing both the victim AND the race card. wow.


The thing that bothers me is that you guys keep claiming it was all malicious without having anything to back it up.

Did the IRS screw up? Yes they did.

Did the IRS intend to sabotage the Tea Party? You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe that when you realize that the Tea Party could still function as a 501(c)(4) without approval from the IRS.
 
2013-06-07 07:09:52 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

It is a huge stretch to say they lied by being primarily political

If a group gets approved in September and is Political for the first two months and then non political for the next ten months your viewpoint on how political they are would depend on when you looked.

It isn't a lie if they start being political. You have to judge them over a period of time.

Yeah, no:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-cha fing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-cha fing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?_r=0


That link said nothing to contradict what I said.
Of course you need to judge a group by what they do...over time, not based on the first, or the second or the third thing they do.
If you didn't do that, you could remove the NAACP and Union tax exempt status the first time they were political.
 
2013-06-07 07:10:04 PM

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You don't use your government power and position to target by name groups from one side only of the political spectrum.

Good thing they didn't do that.


Oh please, a list of other groups "targeted by name."
 
2013-06-07 07:11:52 PM

Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You don't use your government power and position to target by name groups from one side only of the political spectrum.

Good thing they didn't do that.

Oh please, a list of other groups "targeted by name."


The IG won't release the list of words they used but since 1/3 of those flagged were conservative that should tell you it was more than one side of the political spectrum.
 
2013-06-07 07:13:31 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: These Tea Party groups could still function without tax-exempt status. The only reason they applied for it was to keep from disclosing who their donors are.

Which says a lot about them to me than this "scandal" does.

Are you saying that a private enterprise that is not tax exempt has to disclose who donates money to them?

You don't know what a 501(c)(4) organization actually entails huh?

You said the only reason they applied for tax exempt status was so they don't have to disclose their donors

Are you now changing your statement or do you stick with that?

I meant to say the 501(c)(4) status that they requested.


Got it.  I now have figured out that the "traveler" in your name refers to the frequent moving of goal posts.

That's the main reason all of these groups requested 501(c)(4) status in the first place. This is pretty common knowledge.

So you are now saying that ALL of these groups requested 501(c)(4) status.
Wrong.
 
2013-06-07 07:15:39 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

It is a huge stretch to say they lied by being primarily political

If a group gets approved in September and is Political for the first two months and then non political for the next ten months your viewpoint on how political they are would depend on when you looked.

It isn't a lie if they start being political. You have to judge them over a period of time.

Yeah, no:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-cha fing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-cha fing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?_r=0

That link said nothing to contradict what I said.
Of course you need to judge a group by what they do...over time, not based on the first, or the second or the third thing they do.
If you didn't do that, you could remove the NAACP and Union tax exempt status the first time they were political.


Except, that is exactly what happened to the NAACP. They criticized Bush, and their tax-exempt status was challenged.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/
 
2013-06-07 07:16:14 PM

BMulligan: CynicalLA: Wessoman: And prove us correct? That one of the Fark Mods is a Right Wing shill? I don't think so compadre.

I agree with you and think you are right.  I've had all my posts erased a couple times and been banned as well.  It was just a warning.

Hell, I had a post deleted a week or two ago because I said something mean about Steve Perry from Journey.



I guess I'm going to have to try harder -- worst that's happened to me is one of my posts got attributed to Grumpy Cat. Apparently it's an alt-by-proxy thing the mods do once in a while to amuse themselves...
 
2013-06-07 07:17:17 PM

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You don't use your government power and position to target by name groups from one side only of the political spectrum.

Good thing they didn't do that.

Oh please, a list of other groups "targeted by name."

The IG won't release the list of words they used but since 1/3 of those flagged were conservative that should tell you it was more than one side of the political spectrum.


Wrong answer. "Flagged" is different than keyword targeting.
 
2013-06-07 07:20:39 PM

Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You don't use your government power and position to target by name groups from one side only of the political spectrum.

Good thing they didn't do that.

Oh please, a list of other groups "targeted by name."

The IG won't release the list of words they used but since 1/3 of those flagged were conservative that should tell you it was more than one side of the political spectrum.

Wrong answer. "Flagged" is different than keyword targeting.


*facepalm*
 
2013-06-07 07:21:36 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: These Tea Party groups could still function without tax-exempt status. The only reason they applied for it was to keep from disclosing who their donors are.

Which says a lot about them to me than this "scandal" does.

Are you saying that a private enterprise that is not tax exempt has to disclose who donates money to them?

You don't know what a 501(c)(4) organization actually entails huh?

You said the only reason they applied for tax exempt status was so they don't have to disclose their donors

Are you now changing your statement or do you stick with that?

I meant to say the 501(c)(4) status that they requested.

Got it.  I now have figured out that the "traveler" in your name refers to the frequent moving of goal posts.

That's the main reason all of these groups requested 501(c)(4) status in the first place. This is pretty common knowledge.

So you are now saying that ALL of these groups requested 501(c)(4) status.
Wrong.


They didn't?
 
2013-06-07 07:21:38 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You don't use your government power and position to target by name groups from one side only of the political spectrum.

Good thing they didn't do that.

Oh please, a list of other groups "targeted by name."

The IG won't release the list of words they used but since 1/3 of those flagged were conservative that should tell you it was more than one side of the political spectrum.

Wrong answer. "Flagged" is different than keyword targeting.

*facepalm*


No evidence from you either. But I knew that already because we went through this before.
 
2013-06-07 07:25:47 PM

Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You don't use your government power and position to target by name groups from one side only of the political spectrum.

Good thing they didn't do that.

Oh please, a list of other groups "targeted by name."

The IG won't release the list of words they used but since 1/3 of those flagged were conservative that should tell you it was more than one side of the political spectrum.

Wrong answer. "Flagged" is different than keyword targeting.


Are you clueless or just trolling?
 
2013-06-07 07:29:32 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You don't use your government power and position to target by name groups from one side only of the political spectrum.

Good thing they didn't do that.

Oh please, a list of other groups "targeted by name."

The IG won't release the list of words they used but since 1/3 of those flagged were conservative that should tell you it was more than one side of the political spectrum.

Wrong answer. "Flagged" is different than keyword targeting.

*facepalm*

No evidence from you either. But I knew that already because we went through this before.


Show us how it is different. Do you have inside information on how the IRS exactly looks at the applications?
 
2013-06-07 07:32:55 PM

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You don't use your government power and position to target by name groups from one side only of the political spectrum.

Good thing they didn't do that.

Oh please, a list of other groups "targeted by name."

The IG won't release the list of words they used but since 1/3 of those flagged were conservative that should tell you it was more than one side of the political spectrum.

Wrong answer. "Flagged" is different than keyword targeting.

Are you clueless or just trolling?


Please explain yourself.

You say the IG has a list of words the IRS used to target groups, many you say, not the conservative ones we know about.

That's big news. Why not release all those names? It would help greatly to defuse this situation. You know why they're not being released? Because it's fiction, apparently of your invention.

When you say "flagged" that is routine IRS operation. Something in the application is deemed worthy of further investigation. Flagged is not the same thing as "hey, let's check out everyone with the name Chuck."

I am fighting with the president on this one. We must get to the bottom of this and get rid of all responsible.
 
2013-06-07 07:33:07 PM
Rep. Peter Roskam, R-IL: "How come only conservative groups got snagged?"

Outgoing acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller: "They didn't sir. Organizations of all walks and all persuasions were pulled in. That's shown by the fact that only 70 of the 300 organizations were tea party organizations, of the ones that were looked at by TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration]."

If you'd like to prove otherwise proceed.
 
2013-06-07 07:35:40 PM

Fart_Machine: Rep. Peter Roskam, R-IL: "How come only conservative groups got snagged?"

Outgoing acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller: "They didn't sir. Organizations of all walks and all persuasions were pulled in. That's shown by the fact that only 70 of the 300 organizations were tea party organizations, of the ones that were looked at by TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration]."

If you'd like to prove otherwise proceed.


You have proven nothing. Once again.
 
2013-06-07 07:37:30 PM

Fart_Machine: Are you clueless or just trolling?


It would take a keen eye to tell the difference.

the_dude_abides: that's cute, NOW you wanna take the high road and stop the corruption. not during the last two years, when your side was unscrupulously gaming the system and targeting the opposition, but now, after the election and after the democrats got caught with their pants down in the middle of the scandal. how very noble of you.

and of course, you still have the nerve of playing both the victim AND the race card. wow.


If Citizen's United remains law, then it is delicious irony that it will be used against the people who moved mountains to create it. So sorry that OFA did a much better job than the Koch Brother's groups. Of course, *I* personally believe that OFA shouldn't be a 501c. Or Labor Unions. Heck, anything remotely near political shouldn't recieve tax-exempt status.

That said, for a long time the Democratic party was beaten simply because the GOP used underhanded tactics and they were naive enough to take the "High Road". When that changed, that's when the GOP started feeling the burn. I keep forgetting that Cognitive Dissonance is a feature, not a bug for you guys.

So yeah, sorry that you and your ilk didn't think your cunning plan through. Like I said, you can keep on farking that chicken, or how about trying to overturn Citizen's United?
 
2013-06-07 07:41:10 PM

carpbrain: No . . . a quite clever mod who is good at pushing buttons at just unexpected enough angles and times that they get a constant stream of hooked fishies. It's become one of the most boring things about Fark for me.

I really only come here for the comments when I want to learn something more about the story, or I want to learn how actual humans on various sides of the spectrum will react. E.g., I'm curious to learn how the Fark Independents will react to the phone record harvests (it has to be for every phone call in the US, not just Verizon), and now PRISM. The conservative pundits seem to be breaking into multiple camps, with of course the crazy ones claiming that this whole thing is Obama's invention and part of his attempt to take over the country. But when I can't find honest discussion, I leave disappointed.


Great post. Just repeating it.
 
2013-06-07 07:43:25 PM

Cletus C.: You say the IG has a list of words the IRS used to target groups, many you say, not the conservative ones we know about.

That's big news. Why not release all those names? It would help greatly to defuse this situation. You know why they're not being released? Because it's fiction, apparently of your invention.


It's not big news.  It's old news.  See I've actually read the IG report.  You can too since it's available on PDF here.  So if you have every key word they used then please post it.  I'll wait.

And flagged means those that were sent questionnaires for extra scrutiny.  That's the whole controversy here.  Nobody was farking investigated you dolt!
 
2013-06-07 07:44:20 PM

Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Rep. Peter Roskam, R-IL: "How come only conservative groups got snagged?"

Outgoing acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller: "They didn't sir. Organizations of all walks and all persuasions were pulled in. That's shown by the fact that only 70 of the 300 organizations were tea party organizations, of the ones that were looked at by TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration]."

If you'd like to prove otherwise proceed.

You have proven nothing. Once again.


I've proven you can't read or are willfully ignorant.  So which one is it?
 
2013-06-07 07:45:48 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

It is a huge stretch to say they lied by being primarily political

If a group gets approved in September and is Political for the first two months and then non political for the next ten months your viewpoint on how political they are would depend on when you looked.

It isn't a lie if they start being political. You have to judge them over a period of time.

Yeah, no:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-cha fing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-cha fing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?_r=0

That link said nothing to contradict what I said.
Of course you need to judge a group by what they do...over time, not based on the first, or the second or the third thing they do.
If you didn't do that, you could remove the NAACP and Union tax exempt status the first time they were political.

Except, that is exactly what happened to the NAACP. They criticized Bush, and their tax-exempt status was challenged.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/


Looks like you also don't know the difference between a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4)

"501(c)(3) organizations are not permitted to engage in political activity, endorse or oppose political candidates, or donate money or time to political campaigns, but 501(c)(4) organizations can do all of the above "
 
2013-06-07 07:46:43 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Show us how it is different. Do you have inside information on how the IRS exactly looks at the applications?


At this point I'm pretty sure he's just a bot.  Nobody can be this obtuse.
 
2013-06-07 07:47:50 PM

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You don't use your government power and position to target by name groups from one side only of the political spectrum.

Good thing they didn't do that.

Oh please, a list of other groups "targeted by name."

The IG won't release the list of words they used but since 1/3 of those flagged were conservative that should tell you it was more than one side of the political spectrum.

Wrong answer. "Flagged" is different than keyword targeting.

Are you clueless or just trolling?


Something something the late Earl Warren.
 
2013-06-07 07:47:56 PM

Fart_Machine: It's not big news. It's old news. See I've actually read the IG report. You can too since it's available on PDF here. So if you have every key word they used then please post it. I'll wait.

And flagged means those that were sent questionnaires for extra scrutiny. That's the whole controversy here. Nobody was farking investigated you dolt!


Fart_Machine: I've proven you can't read or are willfully ignorant. So which one is it?


He's already set the narrative in his mind. Any amount of facts or reason will just have him repeat his spoonfed talking points using different grammar and sentence structure.
 
2013-06-07 07:47:57 PM

carpbrain: But when I can't find honest discussion, I leave disappointed.


you are looking for honest discussion on fark?

and you are surprised when you leave disappointed?

welcome to fark.
 
2013-06-07 07:54:53 PM

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You say the IG has a list of words the IRS used to target groups, many you say, not the conservative ones we know about.

That's big news. Why not release all those names? It would help greatly to defuse this situation. You know why they're not being released? Because it's fiction, apparently of your invention.

It's not big news.  It's old news.  See I've actually read the IG report.  You can too since it's available on PDF here.  So if you have every key word they used then please post it.  I'll wait.

And flagged means those that were sent questionnaires for extra scrutiny.  That's the whole controversy here.  Nobody was farking investigated you dolt!


Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You say the IG has a list of words the IRS used to target groups, many you say, not the conservative ones we know about.

That's big news. Why not release all those names? It would help greatly to defuse this situation. You know why they're not being released? Because it's fiction, apparently of your invention.

It's not big news.  It's old news.  See I've actually read the IG report.  You can too since it's available on PDF here.  So if you have every key word they used then please post it.  I'll wait.

And flagged means those that were sent questionnaires for extra scrutiny.  That's the whole controversy here.  Nobody was farking investigated you dolt!


Finally, you admit you're talking about every group that was sent questionnaires, not groups that were targeted because of their names.

This is a major breakthrough for you. Congratulations. And here's what another guy had to say after reading the IG report.

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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of the public's trust, and that's especially true for the IRS. The IRS must apply the law in a fair and impartial way, and its employees must act with utmost integrity. This report shows that some of its employees failed that test.
 
2013-06-07 07:58:38 PM

Cletus C.: Finally, you admit you're talking about every group that was sent questionnaires, not groups that were targeted because of their names.


/double-facepalm

Cletus C.: This is a major breakthrough for you. Congratulations. And here's what another guy had to say after reading the IG report.

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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of the public's trust, and that's especially true for the IRS. The IRS must apply the law in a fair and impartial way, and its employees must act with utmost integrity. This report shows that some of its employees failed that test.


So where in that statement does it say it was politically motivated to only target conservatives.
 
2013-06-07 08:02:11 PM

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: This is a major breakthrough for you. Congratulations. And here's what another guy had to say after reading the IG report.

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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of the public's trust, and that's especially true for the IRS. The IRS must apply the law in a fair and impartial way, and its employees must act with utmost integrity. This report shows that some of its employees failed that test.

So where in that statement does it say it was politically motivated to only target conservatives.


Agreed. Where is the scandal? Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?
 
2013-06-07 08:20:11 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

It is a huge stretch to say they lied by being primarily political

If a group gets approved in September and is Political for the first two months and then non political for the next ten months your viewpoint on how political they are would depend on when you looked.

It isn't a lie if they start being political. You have to judge them over a period of time.

Yeah, no:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-cha fing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-cha fing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?_r=0

That link said nothing to contradict what I said.
Of course you need to judge a group by what they do...over time, not based on the first, or the second or the third thing they do.
If you didn't do that, you could remove the NAACP and Union tax exempt status the first time they were political.

Except, that is exactly what happened to the NAACP. They criticized Bush, and their tax-exempt status was challenged.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/

Looks like you also don't know the difference between a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4)

"501(c)(3) organizations are not permitted to engage in political activity, endorse or oppose political candidates, or donate money or ...

From the IRS site:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm95.pdf 

Reg.  1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i) provides that an organization is operated 
exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in 
promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the 
community, i.e., primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterment and 
social improvements. Whether an organization is "primarily" engaged in 
promoting social welfare is a "facts and circumstances" test.

As a result, one major distinction between IRC 501(c)(3) and IRC 501(c)(4) 
organizations is the amount of activity that may be devoted to nonexempt 
purposes. In contrast to the "primarily engaged" standard under Reg. 
1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i), Reg.  1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(1) says an organization will not be 
regarded as "operated exclusively" for IRC 501(c)(3) exempt purposes "if more 
than an insubstantial part of its activities is not in furtherance of an exempt 
purpose." The difference between "primary" and "insubstantial" is significant.
 
2013-06-07 08:21:28 PM
All I can find on this are Fox news and right wing rag stories.  Does anyone have a transcript?
 
2013-06-07 08:21:51 PM

MyRandomName: Do liberals honestly live in a bubble?  Why is subby surprised by this?  It was always the argument from the right that this was larger than 2 rogue agents in cincinatti.  It was always the argument that Benghazi was not about a YouTube video.  It was the liberals leaders pushing those myths.

In regards to the IRS, it was always stated by the GOP two things: a) the targeting was more widespread than one office, b) The White House knew more than they initially reported.  B was proven false quickly with Carney continuing to change when people in the White House knew.  A is being show to also be true.  Why is this a shock to you subby?

The most disconcerting part is still the fact that the IG refuses to investigate the LEAKS OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS to liberals groups like ProPublica.  In fact, they are now hiding behind Nixonian era rules to state they can't let NOW know who leaked their documents.  The leaking of these documents is BY FAR the scariest part of everything.  It is the pure abuse of political power to try and subvert a political opponent.  Yet liberals continue to try and blame the victim for being abused.


Maybe it would be taken more seriously if you folks hadn't already started birthergate, muslimgate, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
 
2013-06-07 08:22:05 PM

Mrtraveler01: vernonFL: Obama was so afraid of the Tea Party that he ordered the IRS to not approve any tea party groups' tax exemption applications.

And yet they still got approved anyway.


Yeah, after Obama had safely won re-election. But the Inspector General did say they were wrong to target specific groups, so that made it all better. When President Ted Cruz's IRS decides every group with the word "progressive" in its title needs a few years of foot-dragging, harrassment, demanding letters, and audits, remember that it's okay as long as they get approved eventually, and by 'eventually' I mean sometime in his second term.
 
2013-06-07 08:23:19 PM

Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?


America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.
 
2013-06-07 08:23:51 PM

Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You say the IG has a list of words the IRS used to target groups, many you say, not the conservative ones we know about.

That's big news. Why not release all those names? It would help greatly to defuse this situation. You know why they're not being released? Because it's fiction, apparently of your invention.

It's not big news.  It's old news.  See I've actually read the IG report.  You can too since it's available on PDF here.  So if you have every key word they used then please post it.  I'll wait.

And flagged means those that were sent questionnaires for extra scrutiny.  That's the whole controversy here.  Nobody was farking investigated you dolt!

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You say the IG has a list of words the IRS used to target groups, many you say, not the conservative ones we know about.

That's big news. Why not release all those names? It would help greatly to defuse this situation. You know why they're not being released? Because it's fiction, apparently of your invention.

It's not big news.  It's old news.  See I've actually read the IG report.  You can too since it's available on PDF here.  So if you have every key word they used then please post it.  I'll wait.

And flagged means those that were sent questionnaires for extra scrutiny.  That's the whole controversy here.  Nobody was farking investigated you dolt!

Finally, you admit you're talking about every group that was sent questionnaires, not groups that were targeted because of their names.

This is a major breakthrough for you. Congratulations. And here's what another guy had to say after reading the IG report.

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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of the public's trust, and that's espec ...


What "another guy"? Some GOP shill who desperately wants to tie this to Obama? What is your source?
 
2013-06-07 08:25:11 PM

jjorsett: Mrtraveler01: vernonFL: Obama was so afraid of the Tea Party that he ordered the IRS to not approve any tea party groups' tax exemption applications.

And yet they still got approved anyway.

Yeah, after Obama had safely won re-election. But the Inspector General did say they were wrong to target specific groups, so that made it all better. When President Ted Cruz's IRS decides every group with the word "progressive" in its title needs a few years of foot-dragging, harrassment, demanding letters, and audits, remember that it's okay as long as they get approved eventually, and by 'eventually' I mean sometime in his second term.


So you should just name your group the "Progressive Tea Party" to be safe.
 
2013-06-07 08:25:21 PM

jjorsett: Mrtraveler01: vernonFL: Obama was so afraid of the Tea Party that he ordered the IRS to not approve any tea party groups' tax exemption applications.

And yet they still got approved anyway.

Yeah, after Obama had safely won re-election. But the Inspector General did say they were wrong to target specific groups, so that made it all better. When President Ted Cruz's IRS decides every group with the word "progressive" in its title needs a few years of foot-dragging, harrassment, demanding letters, and audits, remember that it's okay as long as they get approved eventually, and by 'eventually' I mean sometime in his second term.


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You do know he is Canadian, right? Will you ask for his birth certificate too?
 
2013-06-07 08:27:45 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.


47% of 1002 people they polled.

Forty-seven percent of Americans say they don't believe Obama compared with 40 percent who say he is being truthful, according to a Bloomberg National Poll of 1,002 adults conducted May 31 through June 3.
 
2013-06-07 08:31:16 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.


Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.
 
2013-06-07 08:32:21 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

47% of 1002 people they polled.

Forty-seven percent of Americans say they don't believe Obama compared with 40 percent who say he is being truthful, according to a Bloomberg National Poll of 1,002 adults conducted May 31 through June 3.


Yeah, so?
47% said yes.
40% said he wasn't.

so more people thought he was lying than thought he was telling the truth.

of independents, 53% were against Obama on this issue.
 
2013-06-07 08:33:48 PM

cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.


Looks like you don't know how polls work.

more people think he is lying than think he is telling the truth.  47:40
 
2013-06-07 08:35:19 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

47% of 1002 people they polled.

Forty-seven percent of Americans say they don't believe Obama compared with 40 percent who say he is being truthful, according to a Bloomberg National Poll of 1,002 adults conducted May 31 through June 3.

Yeah, so?
47% said yes.
40% said he wasn't.

so more people thought he was lying than thought he was telling the truth.

of independents, 53% were against Obama on this issue.


Do you want to guess how many people are in the United States? Hint: It is more than 1002 people. It is not representative of the entire country. If it was of 10,000 people or 1,000,000 people, I would agree.
 
2013-06-07 08:36:29 PM

jjorsett: Yeah, after Obama had safely won re-election.


Which isn't true either since they could still operate.
 
2013-06-07 08:36:51 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

more people think he is lying than think he is telling the truth.  47:40


Saying that "more than half of Americans think Obama is lying" is a bullshiat statistic, if they only poll 1000.
 
2013-06-07 08:38:35 PM
Also these groups shouldn't have been involved with elections in the first place.
 
2013-06-07 08:39:14 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

47% of 1002 people they polled.

Forty-seven percent of Americans say they don't believe Obama compared with 40 percent who say he is being truthful, according to a Bloomberg National Poll of 1,002 adults conducted May 31 through June 3.

Yeah, so?
47% said yes.
40% said he wasn't.

so more people thought he was lying than thought he was telling the truth.

of independents, 53% were against Obama on this issue.

Do you want to guess how many people are in the United States? Hint: It is more than 1002 people. It is not representative of the entire country. If it was of 10,000 people or 1,000,000 people, I would agree.


Please let's not be innumerate about polling samples.  Unless there's a systematic error in the sampling process, the margin of error of a poll depends only on the total number of samples (in this case, the number of people polled), and is completely independent of the size of the population being sampled.
 
2013-06-07 08:51:13 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You say the IG has a list of words the IRS used to target groups, many you say, not the conservative ones we know about.

That's big news. Why not release all those names? It would help greatly to defuse this situation. You know why they're not being released? Because it's fiction, apparently of your invention.

It's not big news.  It's old news.  See I've actually read the IG report.  You can too since it's available on PDF here.  So if you have every key word they used then please post it.  I'll wait.

And flagged means those that were sent questionnaires for extra scrutiny.  That's the whole controversy here.  Nobody was farking investigated you dolt!

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You say the IG has a list of words the IRS used to target groups, many you say, not the conservative ones we know about.

That's big news. Why not release all those names? It would help greatly to defuse this situation. You know why they're not being released? Because it's fiction, apparently of your invention.

It's not big news.  It's old news.  See I've actually read the IG report.  You can too since it's available on PDF here.  So if you have every key word they used then please post it.  I'll wait.

And flagged means those that were sent questionnaires for extra scrutiny.  That's the whole controversy here.  Nobody was farking investigated you dolt!

Finally, you admit you're talking about every group that was sent questionnaires, not groups that were targeted because of their names.

This is a major breakthrough for you. Congratulations. And here's what another guy had to say after reading the IG report.

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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of the public's trust, and that's espec ...

What "another guy"? Some GOP shill who desperately wants to tie this to Obama? What is your source?


You're kidding, right? You have to know that's a quote from Obama.
 
2013-06-07 08:54:46 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

47% of 1002 people they polled.

Forty-seven percent of Americans say they don't believe Obama compared with 40 percent who say he is being truthful, according to a Bloomberg National Poll of 1,002 adults conducted May 31 through June 3.

Yeah, so?
47% said yes.
40% said he wasn't.

so more people thought he was lying than thought he was telling the truth.

of independents, 53% were against Obama on this issue.

Do you want to guess how many people are in the United States? Hint: It is more than 1002 people. It is not representative of the entire country. If it was of 10,000 people or 1,000,000 people, I would agree.


are you for farking real?
do you not know how polls work?
Do you know anything about statistics at all?

I would suggest you read up before you further make a fool of yourself.
 
2013-06-07 08:58:39 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky:
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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of

What "another guy"? Some GOP shill who desperately wants to tie this to Obama? What is your source?


You're kidding, right? You have to know that's a quote from Obama.

Okay, that is too funny.
 
2013-06-07 08:58:47 PM

Zeppelininthesky: jjorsett: Mrtraveler01: vernonFL: Obama was so afraid of the Tea Party that he ordered the IRS to not approve any tea party groups' tax exemption applications.

And yet they still got approved anyway.

Yeah, after Obama had safely won re-election. But the Inspector General did say they were wrong to target specific groups, so that made it all better. When President Ted Cruz's IRS decides every group with the word "progressive" in its title needs a few years of foot-dragging, harrassment, demanding letters, and audits, remember that it's okay as long as they get approved eventually, and by 'eventually' I mean sometime in his second term.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You do know he is Canadian, right? Will you ask for his birth certificate too?


To an American mother, making him natural-born. No, I won't be asking for his birth certificate for the same reason I never demanded Obama's. I know it's hard, but try to visualize a world in which all the people whose ideologies you oppose don't believe the same exact same things.
 
2013-06-07 08:59:17 PM

vernonFL: So, it seems like even though Jesus felt he was exempt from paying certain taxes, he paid them anyways.


I dunno, man...something about that story seems kinda fishy.
 
2013-06-07 09:01:33 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

It is a huge stretch to say they lied by being primarily political

If a group gets approved in September and is Political for the first two months and then non political for the next ten months your viewpoint on how political they are would depend on when you looked.

It isn't a lie if they start being political. You have to judge them over a period of time.


So the delay in approval makes sense then.
 
2013-06-07 09:01:45 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: jjorsett: Mrtraveler01: vernonFL: Obama was so afraid of the Tea Party that he ordered the IRS to not approve any tea party groups' tax exemption applications.

And yet they still got approved anyway.

Yeah, after Obama had safely won re-election. But the Inspector General did say they were wrong to target specific groups, so that made it all better. When President Ted Cruz's IRS decides every group with the word "progressive" in its title needs a few years of foot-dragging, harrassment, demanding letters, and audits, remember that it's okay as long as they get approved eventually, and by 'eventually' I mean sometime in his second term.

So you should just name your group the "Progressive Tea Party" to be safe.


The tactic of dissolving and renaming the organization something innocuous is exactly what at least one group reportedly did after they had been delayed for months. They were approved in a short time thereafter.
 
2013-06-07 09:01:55 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You say the IG has a list of words the IRS used to target groups, many you say, not the conservative ones we know about.

That's big news. Why not release all those names? It would help greatly to defuse this situation. You know why they're not being released? Because it's fiction, apparently of your invention.

It's not big news.  It's old news.  See I've actually read the IG report.  You can too since it's available on PDF here.  So if you have every key word they used then please post it.  I'll wait.

And flagged means those that were sent questionnaires for extra scrutiny.  That's the whole controversy here.  Nobody was farking investigated you dolt!

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: You say the IG has a list of words the IRS used to target groups, many you say, not the conservative ones we know about.

That's big news. Why not release all those names? It would help greatly to defuse this situation. You know why they're not being released? Because it's fiction, apparently of your invention.

It's not big news.  It's old news.  See I've actually read the IG report.  You can too since it's available on PDF here.  So if you have every key word they used then please post it.  I'll wait.

And flagged means those that were sent questionnaires for extra scrutiny.  That's the whole controversy here.  Nobody was farking investigated you dolt!

Finally, you admit you're talking about every group that was sent questionnaires, not groups that were targeted because of their names.

This is a major breakthrough for you. Congratulations. And here's what another guy had to say after reading the IG report.

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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of the pub ...



So it is...

But, you never posted the rest of the quote:

Here's Obama's full statement:

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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of the public's trust, and that's especially true for the IRS. The IRS must apply the law in a fair and impartial way, and its employees must act with utmost integrity. This report shows that some of its employees failed that test.

I've directed Secretary 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. But regardless of how this conduct was allowed to take place, the bottom line is, it was wrong. Public service is a solemn privilege. I expect everyone who serves in the federal government to hold themselves to the highest ethical and moral standards. So do the American people. And as President, I intend to make sure our public servants live up to those standards every day.
 
2013-06-07 09:03:26 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky:
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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of

What "another guy"? Some GOP shill who desperately wants to tie this to Obama? What is your source?

You're kidding, right? You have to know that's a quote from Obama.

Okay, that is too funny.


You could of actually said that Obama said the quote, instead of just saying "some guy".
 
2013-06-07 09:06:00 PM

emotion_lotion: So the delay in approval makes sense then.


The thing is they could still operate while being approved.
 
2013-06-07 09:06:18 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky:
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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of

What "another guy"? Some GOP shill who desperately wants to tie this to Obama? What is your source?

You're kidding, right? You have to know that's a quote from Obama.

Okay, that is too funny.

You could of actually said that Obama said the quote, instead of just saying "some guy".


1.  I didn't say "some guy".
2.  I thought everyone knew that quote.
 
2013-06-07 09:06:33 PM

emotion_lotion: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

It is a huge stretch to say they lied by being primarily political

If a group gets approved in September and is Political for the first two months and then non political for the next ten months your viewpoint on how political they are would depend on when you looked.

It isn't a lie if they start being political. You have to judge them over a period of time.

So the delay in approval makes sense then.


By which you make it difficult or impossible for the group to operate, so you've effectively shut it down. The audit process is what turns up abuse, not dragging out the application process just "to see how they operate". Your personal tax deductions aren't provisionally denied while the IRS makes up its mind about them. They go through and then if they look suspicious they kick off an audit.
 
2013-06-07 09:09:54 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky:
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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of

What "another guy"? Some GOP shill who desperately wants to tie this to Obama? What is your source?

You're kidding, right? You have to know that's a quote from Obama.

Okay, that is too funny.

You could of actually said that Obama said the quote, instead of just saying "some guy".

1.  I didn't say "some guy".
2.  I thought everyone knew that quote.


It is my bad for not knowing the quote, but regardless, it really does not say what you want it to say. He basically blamed the IRS folks who did the "keyword". We have been over this a million times. Yes, it was wrong for them to use a keyword that could be bias. The IG report did not in any way say that the groups were targeted because of political reasons.
 
2013-06-07 09:10:27 PM

Cletus C.: You're kidding, right? You have to know that's a quote from Obama.


lolololol well played

zep, you're an embarrassment
 
2013-06-07 09:11:07 PM

Fart_Machine: emotion_lotion: So the delay in approval makes sense then.

The thing is they could still operate while being approved.


sure you could.
but if you didn't know whether or not you were going to get approved, wouldn't you operate under the worse case scenario so if you are wacked with a huge tax bill you could cover it?

also, I don't know what the implications are for getting donations if you disclosed "we have an application in but don't know if it will be approved".  I would expect that some (most?) large donors would want to know your status is approved before committing.
 
2013-06-07 09:14:39 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky:
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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of

What "another guy"? Some GOP shill who desperately wants to tie this to Obama? What is your source?

You're kidding, right? You have to know that's a quote from Obama.

Okay, that is too funny.

You could of actually said that Obama said the quote, instead of just saying "some guy".

1.  I didn't say "some guy".
2.  I thought everyone knew that quote.

It is my bad for not knowing the quote, but regardless, it really does not say what you want it to say. He basically blamed the IRS folks who did the "keyword". We have been over this a million times. Yes, it was wrong for them to use a keyword that could be bias. The IG report did not in any way say that the groups were targeted because of political reasons.


sure.  they just used the random keyword generator for their targeting.
and they follow up questionnaires also randomly chose questions.

together those two random generators just happened to target conservative groups.

I find it mind boggling that you defend the IRS the way you do.
 
2013-06-07 09:15:12 PM

the_dude_abides: Cletus C.: You're kidding, right? You have to know that's a quote from Obama.

lolololol well played

zep, you're an embarrassment


At least when I say something wrong, I acknowledge I made a mistake. You take a steaming shiat all over the thread and act like nothing is wrong.
 
2013-06-07 09:16:27 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky:
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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of

What "another guy"? Some GOP shill who desperately wants to tie this to Obama? What is your source?

You're kidding, right? You have to know that's a quote from Obama.

Okay, that is too funny.

You could of actually said that Obama said the quote, instead of just saying "some guy".

1.  I didn't say "some guy".
2.  I thought everyone knew that quote.

It is my bad for not knowing the quote, but regardless, it really does not say what you want it to say. He basically blamed the IRS folks who did the "keyword". We have been over this a million times. Yes, it was wrong for them to use a keyword that could be bias. The IG report did not in any way say that the groups were targeted because of political reasons.

sure.  they just used the random keyword generator for their targeting.
and they follow up questionnaires also randomly chose questions.

together those two random generators just happened to target conservative groups.

I find it mind boggling that you defend the IRS the way you do.


You do know they also flagged Liberal groups. right?
 
2013-06-07 09:21:21 PM

jjorsett: By which you make it difficult or impossible for the group to operate, so you've effectively shut it down. The audit process is what turns up abuse, not dragging out the application process just "to see how they operate". Your personal tax deductions aren't provisionally denied while the IRS makes up its mind about them. They go through and then if they look suspicious they kick off an audit.


That really is a major point that people miss.

To say to a new group that we suspect that you may sometime in the future do a predominant amount of politics so we are going to keep asking you questions for months and months and months to try to prove that you will do something sometime in the future is flat out wrong.

Grant the status.
Do whatever they do to audit compliance with the status once the business is running.
Do in depth audits if you find they aren't complying.
Apply fines or jail time for problem organizations.

As I mentioned before, just because a group's first activity is a political one does not mean that it is predominantly a political organization.
If they get started in October, then sure the first 2 months could be more political, but the remaining 10 months could be entirely non-political.
 
2013-06-07 09:21:49 PM

jjorsett: emotion_lotion: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

It is a huge stretch to say they lied by being primarily political

If a group gets approved in September and is Political for the first two months and then non political for the next ten months your viewpoint on how political they are would depend on when you looked.

It isn't a lie if they start being political. You have to judge them over a period of time.

So the delay in approval makes sense then.

By which you make it difficult or impossible for the group to operate, so you've effectively shut it down. The audit process is what turns up abuse, not dragging out the application process just "to see how they operate". Your personal tax deductions aren't provisionally denied while the IRS makes up its mind about them. They go through and then if they look suspicious they kick off an audit.


/sigh

Nobody was audited and groups could still operate while in the application process.
 
2013-06-07 09:22:13 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

It is a huge stretch to say they lied by being primarily political

If a group gets approved in September and is Political for the first two months and then non political for the next ten months your viewpoint on how political they are would depend on when you looked.

It isn't a lie if they start being political. You have to judge them over a period of time.


I made it this far in the thread and roared with laughter. No, really I ROARED! Tears of mirth are rolling down my face.

I had a bad day you brightened it tpc.
 
2013-06-07 09:24:28 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky:
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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of

What "another guy"? Some GOP shill who desperately wants to tie this to Obama? What is your source?

You're kidding, right? You have to know that's a quote from Obama.

Okay, that is too funny.

You could of actually said that Obama said the quote, instead of just saying "some guy".

1.  I didn't say "some guy".
2.  I thought everyone knew that quote.

It is my bad for not knowing the quote, but regardless, it really does not say what you want it to say. He basically blamed the IRS folks who did the "keyword". We have been over this a million times. Yes, it was wrong for them to use a keyword that could be bias. The IG report did not in any way say that the groups were targeted because of political reasons.

sure.  they just used the random keyword generator for their targeting.
and they follow up questionnaires also randomly chose questions.

together those two random generators just happened to target conservative groups.

I find it mind boggling that you defend the IRS the way you do.

You do know they also flagged Liberal groups. right?


Not sure:
Almost a month after the IRS story broke-a month after the high-profile scandal started to unravel after a botched spin operation that was meant to make the story go away-no one has been able to produce a liberal or progressive group that was targeted and thwarted by the agency's tax-exemption arm in the years leading up to the 2012 election.
and you do know that NO liberal groups complained that they were asked an inordinate amount of questions ("what was discussed in your prayer meetings?")
 
2013-06-07 09:25:06 PM
link
 
2013-06-07 09:26:25 PM

Zeppelininthesky: The IG report did not in any way say that the groups were targeted because of political reasons.


actually, that is exactly what the IG report says:

"The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions"

that's a DIRECT QUOTE, how can you possibly dispute that?
 
2013-06-07 09:26:46 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: jjorsett: By which you make it difficult or impossible for the group to operate, so you've effectively shut it down. The audit process is what turns up abuse, not dragging out the application process just "to see how they operate". Your personal tax deductions aren't provisionally denied while the IRS makes up its mind about them. They go through and then if they look suspicious they kick off an audit.

That really is a major point that people miss.

To say to a new group that we suspect that you may sometime in the future do a predominant amount of politics so we are going to keep asking you questions for months and months and months to try to prove that you will do something sometime in the future is flat out wrong.

Grant the status.
Do whatever they do to audit compliance with the status once the business is running.
Do in depth audits if you find they aren't complying.
Apply fines or jail time for problem organizations.

As I mentioned before, just because a group's first activity is a political one does not mean that it is predominantly a political organization.
If they get started in October, then sure the first 2 months could be more political, but the remaining 10 months could be entirely non-political.


They have a change of heart? They stop funneling black money to candidates? You mean, like you judged Organizing for Action?
 
2013-06-07 09:27:17 PM

Fart_Machine: jjorsett: emotion_lotion: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

It is a huge stretch to say they lied by being primarily political

If a group gets approved in September and is Political for the first two months and then non political for the next ten months your viewpoint on how political they are would depend on when you looked.

It isn't a lie if they start being political. You have to judge them over a period of time.

So the delay in approval makes sense then.

By which you make it difficult or impossible for the group to operate, so you've effectively shut it down. The audit process is what turns up abuse, not dragging out the application process just "to see how they operate". Your personal tax deductions aren't provisionally denied while the IRS makes up its mind about them. They go through and then if they look suspicious they kick off an audit.

/sigh

Nobody was audited and groups could still operate while in the application process.


sure you could.
but if you didn't know whether or not you were going to get approved, wouldn't you operate under the worse case scenario so if you are wacked with a huge tax bill you could cover it?

also, I don't know what the implications are for getting donations if you disclosed "we have an application in but don't know if it will be approved".  I would expect that some (most?) large donors would want to know your status is approved before committing.
 
2013-06-07 09:29:04 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: jjorsett: By which you make it difficult or impossible for the group to operate, so you've effectively shut it down. The audit process is what turns up abuse, not dragging out the application process just "to see how they operate". Your personal tax deductions aren't provisionally denied while the IRS makes up its mind about them. They go through and then if they look suspicious they kick off an audit.

That really is a major point that people miss.

To say to a new group that we suspect that you may sometime in the future do a predominant amount of politics so we are going to keep asking you questions for months and months and months to try to prove that you will do something sometime in the future is flat out wrong.

Grant the status.
Do whatever they do to audit compliance with the status once the business is running.
Do in depth audits if you find they aren't complying.
Apply fines or jail time for problem organizations.

As I mentioned before, just because a group's first activity is a political one does not mean that it is predominantly a political organization.
If they get started in October, then sure the first 2 months could be more political, but the remaining 10 months could be entirely non-political.

They have a change of heart? They stop funneling black money to candidates? You mean, like you judged Organizing for Action?


when did I judge Organizing for Action?
Please, don't put up strawmen that are so easy to knock down.

how is your reading up on statistics going?
 
2013-06-07 09:32:01 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

more people think he is lying than think he is telling the truth.  47:40

Saying that "more than half of Americans think Obama is lying" is a bullshiat statistic, if they only poll 1000.


which makes Nate Silver all that more impressive. How the hell did he have the time to poll every single voter in the country?
 
2013-06-07 09:33:43 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky:
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. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of

What "another guy"? Some GOP shill who desperately wants to tie this to Obama? What is your source?

You're kidding, right? You have to know that's a quote from Obama.

Okay, that is too funny.

You could of actually said that Obama said the quote, instead of just saying "some guy".

1.  I didn't say "some guy".
2.  I thought everyone knew that quote.

It is my bad for not knowing the quote, but regardless, it really does not say what you want it to say. He basically blamed the IRS folks who did the "keyword". We have been over this a million times. Yes, it was wrong for them to use a keyword that could be bias. The IG report did not in any way say that the groups were targeted because of political reasons.

sure.  they just used the random keyword generator for their targeting.
and they follow up questionnaires also randomly chose questions.

together those two random generators just happened to target conservative groups.

I find it mind boggling that you defend the IRS the way you do.

You do know they also flagged Liberal groups. right?

Not sure:
Almost a month after the IRS story broke-a month after the high-profile scandal started to unravel after a botched spin operation that was meant to make the story go away-no one has been able to produce a liberal or progressive group that was targeted and thwarted by the agency's tax-exemption arm in the years leading up to the 2012 election.
and you do know that NO liberal groups complained that they were asked an inordinate amount of questions ("what was discu ...


Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-dem oc rats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html
 
2013-06-07 09:35:16 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: jjorsett: By which you make it difficult or impossible for the group to operate, so you've effectively shut it down. The audit process is what turns up abuse, not dragging out the application process just "to see how they operate". Your personal tax deductions aren't provisionally denied while the IRS makes up its mind about them. They go through and then if they look suspicious they kick off an audit.

That really is a major point that people miss.

To say to a new group that we suspect that you may sometime in the future do a predominant amount of politics so we are going to keep asking you questions for months and months and months to try to prove that you will do something sometime in the future is flat out wrong.

Grant the status.
Do whatever they do to audit compliance with the status once the business is running.
Do in depth audits if you find they aren't complying.
Apply fines or jail time for problem organizations.

As I mentioned before, just because a group's first activity is a political one does not mean that it is predominantly a political organization.
If they get started in October, then sure the first 2 months could be more political, but the remaining 10 months could be entirely non-political.

They have a change of heart? They stop funneling black money to candidates? You mean, like you judged Organizing for Action?

when did I judge Organizing for Action?
Please, don't put up strawmen that are so easy to knock down.

how is your reading up on statistics going?


How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?
 
2013-06-07 09:36:32 PM

skullkrusher: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

more people think he is lying than think he is telling the truth.  47:40

Saying that "more than half of Americans think Obama is lying" is a bullshiat statistic, if they only poll 1000.

which makes Nate Silver all that more impressive. How the hell did he have the time to poll every single voter in the country?


Still, a poll on how may people thing Obama is lying about the IRS thing is not proof that Obama is lying.
 
2013-06-07 09:37:49 PM

skullkrusher: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

more people think he is lying than think he is telling the truth.  47:40

Saying that "more than half of Americans think Obama is lying" is a bullshiat statistic, if they only poll 1000.

which makes Nate Silver all that more impressive. How the hell did he have the time to poll every single voter in the country?


Or maybe he relied on more than one poll and also used historical trend data?
 
2013-06-07 09:42:44 PM

Zeppelininthesky: skullkrusher: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

more people think he is lying than think he is telling the truth.  47:40

Saying that "more than half of Americans think Obama is lying" is a bullshiat statistic, if they only poll 1000.

which makes Nate Silver all that more impressive. How the hell did he have the time to poll every single voter in the country?

Still, a poll on how may people thing Obama is lying about the IRS thing is not proof that Obama is lying.


quite true.
It isn't and we have no reason to believe that he is
 
2013-06-07 09:43:09 PM
Does anyone know what charitable works these targeted conservative groups in question would be doing?
 
2013-06-07 09:43:43 PM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

more people think he is lying than think he is telling the truth.  47:40

Saying that "more than half of Americans think Obama is lying" is a bullshiat statistic, if they only poll 1000.

which makes Nate Silver all that more impressive. How the hell did he have the time to poll every single voter in the country?

Or maybe he relied on more than one poll and also used historical trend data?


maybe he did. Or maybe the whole point of polling is to get an idea of a population's feeling on an issue by only asking a small subset of that population
 
2013-06-07 09:44:51 PM

Fart_Machine: Or maybe he relied on more than one poll and also used historical trend data?


just in case, here's another poll you can pretend doesn't exist

"Sixty-eight percent of respondents- 80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of independents - said they think the IRS targeting was motivated by politics, rather than adherence to the tax code policy."
 
2013-06-07 09:44:56 PM

Cletus C.: Wrong answer. "Flagged" is different than keyword targeting.


"attacks by terrorists" is different than "terrorist attacks"!
 
2013-06-07 09:45:47 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

more people think he is lying than think he is telling the truth.  47:40

Saying that "more than half of Americans think Obama is lying" is a bullshiat statistic, if they only poll 1000.

which makes Nate Silver all that more impressive. How the hell did he have the time to poll every single voter in the country?

Or maybe he relied on more than one poll and also used historical trend data?

maybe he did. Or maybe the whole point of polling is to get an idea of a population's feeling on an issue by only asking a small subset of that population


Um yeah. The point is you don't just rely on one poll. Silver certainly didn't.
 
2013-06-07 09:47:54 PM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

more people think he is lying than think he is telling the truth.  47:40

Saying that "more than half of Americans think Obama is lying" is a bullshiat statistic, if they only poll 1000.

which makes Nate Silver all that more impressive. How the hell did he have the time to poll every single voter in the country?

Or maybe he relied on more than one poll and also used historical trend data?

maybe he did. Or maybe the whole point of polling is to get an idea of a population's feeling on an issue by only asking a small subset of that population

Um yeah. The point is you don't just rely on one poll. Silver certainly didn't.


That was my point. One poll is not proof, or really representative of everyone.
 
2013-06-07 09:48:25 PM

djkutch: Does anyone know what charitable works these targeted conservative groups in question would be doing?


They help the rich get their taxes lowered.
 
2013-06-07 09:59:22 PM

gameshowhost: djkutch: Does anyone know what charitable works these targeted conservative groups in question would be doing?

They help the rich get their taxes lowered.


And how many, with extra scrutiny, were actually denied status? This important in determining the actual length and breadth of the scandal.
 
2013-06-07 10:00:34 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

more people think he is lying than think he is telling the truth.  47:40

Saying that "more than half of Americans think Obama is lying" is a bullshiat statistic, if they only poll 1000.

which makes Nate Silver all that more impressive. How the hell did he have the time to poll every single voter in the country?

Or maybe he relied on more than one poll and also used historical trend data?

maybe he did. Or maybe the whole point of polling is to get an idea of a population's feeling on an issue by only asking a small subset of that population

Um yeah. The point is you don't just rely on one poll. Silver certainly didn't.

That was my point. One poll is not proof, or really representative of everyone.


True but the only thing that matters to Republicans is the perception. They don't care about facts, they care about convincing the public of a false narrative. They failed with Obama's birth certificate, arugula, fancy mustard, the Bin Laden killing, Benghazi, and many more wolf-esque "scandals" that I don't remember. While the derp brigade may currently have the public believing the narrative, the more facts that are relieved the more the GOP narrative falls apart.

If the GOP was smart they would drop this and let the low information public continue to think that this is terrible and all Obama's fault. Of course the GOP is not smart and they will continue farking that chicken until Obama has a 71% approval rating.
 
2013-06-07 10:13:16 PM

Zeppelininthesky: skullkrusher: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

more people think he is lying than think he is telling the truth.  47:40

Saying that "more than half of Americans think Obama is lying" is a bullshiat statistic, if they only poll 1000.

which makes Nate Silver all that more impressive. How the hell did he have the time to poll every single voter in the country?

Still, a poll on how may people thing Obama is lying about the IRS thing is not proof that Obama is lying.


I never said it did.
I originally responded to the idea that America is just pointing and laughing at the GOP farking this chicken while the poll shows that more Americans believe that he is lying than telling the truth.
 
2013-06-07 10:17:05 PM

Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?


wtf are you referring to?
 
2013-06-07 10:18:24 PM

djkutch: gameshowhost: djkutch: Does anyone know what charitable works these targeted conservative groups in question would be doing?

They help the rich get their taxes lowered.

And how many, with extra scrutiny, were actually denied status? This important in determining the actual length and breadth of the scandal.


We don't have enough info to make an honest determination, do we?
 
2013-06-07 10:19:12 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-dem oc rats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html


No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.
 
2013-06-07 10:19:28 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: skullkrusher: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

Oh my god, Almost Half! That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

more people think he is lying than think he is telling the truth.  47:40

Saying that "more than half of Americans think Obama is lying" is a bullshiat statistic, if they only poll 1000.

which makes Nate Silver all that more impressive. How the hell did he have the time to poll every single voter in the country?

Still, a poll on how may people thing Obama is lying about the IRS thing is not proof that Obama is lying.

I never said it did.
I originally responded to the idea that America is just pointing and laughing at the GOP farking this chicken while the poll shows that more Americans believe that he is lying than telling the truth.


Actually, they are. Anyone with half a brain knows that this "scandal" is a bunch of bullshiat. Everyone knows that the GOP are trying desperately to blame this on Obama because Benghazi flopped, umbrellagate flopped, the AP spying thing flopped, and all the other imagined "scandals" flopped.
 
2013-06-07 10:20:26 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?

wtf are you referring to?


It is very obvious that you do not know how these groups work, or why they are tax-exempt.
 
2013-06-07 10:20:42 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Granny_Panties: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

I bet you swallow Drew's load Mr. Obvious Fark Mod. It's how you got your paid Troll job.

As all other Obama worshipers, you are delusional.



Worshipers?  Are you even trying anymore?  You used to have sharp enough hooks to catch a small minnow once in a while, now you're just resorting to throwing a half stick of tnt into the pond?

0/10


With a little bit of dedication and focus, you can get back on top of the troll game in no time!
 
2013-06-07 10:23:27 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?

wtf are you referring to?

It is very obvious that you do not know how these groups work, or why they are tax-exempt.


What exactly did I say that was wrong about 501(c)(4)?

You keep having ridiculous strawmen (Me saying "Some Guy", Me complaining about Organizing for Action?  Really??)  that I keep proving you wrong on.

This is just your latest one.

But don't take my word on it, poll 1,000,000 people to get an accurate poll of the US.
LOL.
 
2013-06-07 10:29:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-dem oc rats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.


Oh, the humanity:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf
 
2013-06-07 10:33:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?

wtf are you referring to?

It is very obvious that you do not know how these groups work, or why they are tax-exempt.

What exactly did I say that was wrong about 501(c)(4)?

You keep having ridiculous strawmen (Me saying "Some Guy", Me complaining about Organizing for Action?  Really??)  that I keep proving you wrong on.

This is just your latest one.

But don't take my word on it, poll 1,000,000 people to get an accurate poll of the US.
LOL.


I find it hilarious that you have failed at all your arguments on how exactly this is a scandal of Obama's doing and have resorted to pointing out a single poll shows that the public is currently believing the GOP narrative.

The public believed the GOP lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for a period of time as well. The American public is quick to fall for a convincing lie but very few have lasting value and IRSgahzigate is shaping up to have a very short shelf life.
 
2013-06-07 10:34:19 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?

wtf are you referring to?

It is very obvious that you do not know how these groups work, or why they are tax-exempt.

What exactly did I say that was wrong about 501(c)(4)?

You keep having ridiculous strawmen (Me saying "Some Guy", Me complaining about Organizing for Action?  Really??)  that I keep proving you wrong on.

This is just your latest one.

But don't take my word on it, poll 1,000,000 people to get an accurate poll of the US.
LOL.


tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: ShadowKamui: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

Yes they legally are under the nebulous social benefit clause.  Lying and/or being an uninformed idiot doesn't help fixing the problem

They are not allowed to be *primarily* political. Some conservative groups lied on their application, and went right to being a primarily political and endorsing a particular political candidate and giving money for political ads.

It is a huge stretch to say they lied by being primarily political

If a group gets approved in September and is Political for the first two months and then non political for the next ten months your viewpoint on how political they are would depend on when you looked.

It isn't a lie if they start being political. You have to judge them over a period of time.

Yeah, no:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-cha fing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-cha fing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?_r=0

That link said nothing to contradict what I said.
Of course you need to judge a group by what they do...over time, not based on the first, or the second or the third thing they do.
If you didn't do that, you could remove the NAACP and Union tax exempt status the first time they were political.

Except, that is exactly what happened to the NAACP. They criticized Bush, and their tax-exempt status was challenged.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/

Looks like you also don't know the difference between a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4)

"501(c)(3) organizations are not permitted to engage in political activity, endorse or oppose political candidates, or donate money or ...


tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?

wtf are you referring to?

It is very obvious that you do not know how these groups work, or why they are tax-exempt.

What exactly did I say that was wrong about 501(c)(4)?

You keep having ridiculous strawmen (Me saying "Some Guy", Me complaining about Organizing for Action?  Really??)  that I keep proving you wrong on.

This is just your latest one.

But don't take my word on it, poll 1,000,000 people to get an accurate poll of the US.
LOL.


If you look at the actual rules on the IRS website for 501(c)(4) groups, you will notice that you are wrong as to what these groups can do or cannot do.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm95.pdf
 
2013-06-07 10:43:53 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-dem oc rats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.

Oh, the humanity:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf


Keep trying.
That is not the supplemental questionaire that was sent out.
you aren't even trying anymore, are you?

here
 
2013-06-07 10:46:14 PM
If they were "conservative" groups, then they were political, and not only should they have been examined, they shouldn't have gotten the exemption.
 
2013-06-07 10:47:54 PM

Zeppelininthesky: If you look at the actual rules on the IRS website for 501(c)(4) groups, you will notice that you are wrong as to what these groups can do or cannot do.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm95.pdf


Everything I said is consistent with that document.
Tell me what I said that is not.

Or is this another of your strawmen?  (hint:  it is).
 
2013-06-07 10:48:53 PM

Alphakronik: jehovahs witness protection: Granny_Panties: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

I bet you swallow Drew's load Mr. Obvious Fark Mod. It's how you got your paid Troll job.

As all other Obama worshipers, you are delusional.


Worshipers?  Are you even trying anymore?  You used to have sharp enough hooks to catch a small minnow once in a while, now you're just resorting to throwing a half stick of tnt into the pond?

0/10


With a little bit of dedication and focus, you can get back on top of the troll game in no time!


Dude, he's admitted to serious, DT wetbrain type alcoholism, drug addiction and strokes

the_dude_abides: Fart_Machine: Or maybe he relied on more than one poll and also used historical trend data?

just in case, here's another poll you can pretend doesn't exist

"Sixty-eight percent of respondents- 80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of independents - said they think the IRS targeting was motivated by politics, rather than adherence to the tax code policy."


Yep, polls are what's important. Everything should be decided by polls. Unscientific ones, too. Good ones would have to be unskewed.
 
2013-06-07 10:49:43 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-dem oc rats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.

Oh, the humanity:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf

Keep trying.
That is not the supplemental questionaire that was sent out.
you aren't even trying anymore, are you?

here


And to think, the Tea Party had to jump through those hoops just because they didn't want to disclose their donors.
 
2013-06-07 10:51:17 PM
ITT: People who say that 501(c)(4) groups cannot be political, yet ignore that there are PACs with that designation.
 
2013-06-07 10:52:35 PM
The_Six_Fingered_Man: derpderpderpderpdeprlibslibsderpderp

Ahh, troll accounts coming out!
 
2013-06-07 10:53:24 PM

max_pooper: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?

wtf are you referring to?

It is very obvious that you do not know how these groups work, or why they are tax-exempt.

What exactly did I say that was wrong about 501(c)(4)?

You keep having ridiculous strawmen (Me saying "Some Guy", Me complaining about Organizing for Action?  Really??)  that I keep proving you wrong on.

This is just your latest one.

But don't take my word on it, poll 1,000,000 people to get an accurate poll of the US.
LOL.


I find it even funnier that you need to resort to lies and strawmen.

I find it hilarious that you have failed at all your arguments on how exactly this is a scandal of Obama's doing

Strawman alert.  Where did I say this was a scandal of Obama's doing?

and have resorted to pointing out a single poll shows that the public is currently believing the GOP narrative.

Strawman alert.  I used that poll in response to someone who said that they are just pointing and laughing when in fact more think that Obama is lying.

The public believed the GOP lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for a period of time as well.

So?  The public also believed that Obama would be all Hopey and Changey and transparent.  They were wrong about that too.
 
2013-06-07 10:55:01 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-dem oc rats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.

Oh, the humanity:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf

Keep trying.
That is not the supplemental questionaire that was sent out.
you aren't even trying anymore, are you?

here

And to think, the Tea Party had to jump through those hoops just because they didn't want to disclose their donors.


Do you know why they didn't want to disclose their donors?
(hint:  check out the SCOTUS ruling about the NAACP way back)
 
2013-06-07 10:57:00 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-dem oc rats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.

Oh, the humanity:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf

Keep trying.
That is not the supplemental questionaire that was sent out.
you aren't even trying anymore, are you?

here


Whoops, I linked the wrong site. Here is the correct one:  http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/16/irs-targeted-liberal-groups-w i th-same-letter-sent-to-tea-party-groups/

Here are the actual letters sent to the liberal group Progress Texas:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141747107/IRS-Confirmation-of-Tax-Exempt-S ta tus-Progress-Texas-6-15-12

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141747252/IRS-Request-for-More-Information -P rogress-Texas-Feb-2012

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141747134/IRS-March-2011-Letter-Notificati on -of-Receipt
 
2013-06-07 10:57:03 PM

ghare: If they were "conservative" groups, then they were political, and not only should they have been examined, they shouldn't have gotten the exemption.


yeah, unless you want to actually base your decision on what the IRS says:

Organization A conducts research,seminars, forums, and other educational programs for thepublic on issues of public concern. It also engages insubstantial lobbying activities. Its activities are under thedirection of a Board of Directors consisting of prominentindividuals with backgrounds in academics and/orgovernment. While A's philosophy on the issues isgenerally consistent with that of a major political party, itconducts its activities in a non-partisan manner and isnot affiliated in any way with the political party. B'sactivities are primarily "educational"; accordingly, itqualifies for exemption under IRC 501(c)(4)
 
2013-06-07 11:09:33 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: If you look at the actual rules on the IRS website for 501(c)(4) groups, you will notice that you are wrong as to what these groups can do or cannot do.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm95.pdf

Everything I said is consistent with that document.
Tell me what I said that is not.

Or is this another of your strawmen?  (hint:  it is).


Reg.  1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i) provides that an organization is operated 
exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in 
promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the 
community, i.e., primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterment and 
social improvements. Whether an organization is "primarily" engaged in 
promoting social welfare is a "facts and circumstances" test.
 
2013-06-07 11:10:23 PM

ghare: The_Six_Fingered_Man: derpderpderpderpdeprlibslibsderpderp

Ahh, troll accounts coming out!


What an erudite rebuttal of my point.
 
2013-06-07 11:12:50 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: ITT: People who say that 501(c)(4) groups cannot be political, yet ignore that there are PACs with that designation.


They can be political, but there is a limit to how political they can get.
 
2013-06-07 11:13:28 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-dem oc rats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.

Oh, the humanity:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf

Keep trying.
That is not the supplemental questionaire that was sent out.
you aren't even trying anymore, are you?

here

And to think, the Tea Party had to jump through those hoops just because they didn't want to disclose their donors.

Do you know why they didn't want to disclose their donors?
(hint:  check out the SCOTUS ruling about the NAACP way back)


NAACP did not want their donors disclosed because they were getting harassed. The conservative groups are using this loophole to funnel cash to where they want without public scrutiny.
 
2013-06-07 11:33:39 PM

MyRandomName: It's okay to target political groups you disagree with at extra cost and extra time... as long as the results end the same!  Wow what an ignorant stance you have taken.  Thousands of dollars for groups (shipping costs, printing costs) for materials.  Thousands of dollars for lawyers.  Fear of being charged with perjury on questions like "what is the content of your prayers?".  27 months to approve versus 9 months on average for liberal groups.  The leaking of confidential information by agents to liberal groups.


That comes from the USA Today article linked in this thread, and it's a lie. 27 months to approve versus 9 months  at the fastest. USA Today doesn't identify what about these groups make them seem "liberal," nor does it give us an "average" figure. They just say "in as little as."
 
2013-06-07 11:35:56 PM

the_dude_abides: Zeppelininthesky: The IG report did not in any way say that the groups were targeted because of political reasons.

actually, that is exactly what the IG report says:

"The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions"

that's a DIRECT QUOTE, how can you possibly dispute that?


Are you illiterate? The direct quote says they used the names or policy positions. That doesn't mean "bias," that means "names or policy positions." It doesn't say "names Obama doesn't like" or "policy positions held by Republicans," it says "names or policy positions."
 
2013-06-07 11:41:11 PM

Mrtraveler01: The_Six_Fingered_Man: ITT: People who say that 501(c)(4) groups cannot be political, yet ignore that there are PACs with that designation.

They can be political, but there is a limit to how political they can get.


No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in. Which is defined by the IRS as advocating for or against a political candidate. They can engage in unlimited lobbying on political issues.
 
2013-06-07 11:50:41 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in.


Um you mean apart from not participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." That's not considered social welfare.
 
2013-06-07 11:52:51 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: ghare: The_Six_Fingered_Man: derpderpderpderpdeprlibslibsderpderp

Ahh, troll accounts coming out!

What an erudite rebuttal of my point.


ghare will have to rest a bit after using all his brainpower to come up with that one
 
2013-06-07 11:55:22 PM

Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in.

Um you mean apart from not participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." That's not considered social welfare.


Did you only read the first sentence? I quantified political campaign activity as just that, per the IRS. So, thanks for repeating my point, I guess?

FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.
 
2013-06-08 12:02:48 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in.

Um you mean apart from not participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." That's not considered social welfare.

Did you only read the first sentence? I quantified political campaign activity as just that, per the IRS. So, thanks for repeating my point, I guess?

FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.


So they can violate the social welfare provision then.  Um, OK.  Thanks for contradicting yourself I guess?
 
2013-06-08 12:04:37 AM

Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in.

Um you mean apart from not participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." That's not considered social welfare.

Did you only read the first sentence? I quantified political campaign activity as just that, per the IRS. So, thanks for repeating my point, I guess?

FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.

So they can violate the social welfare provision then.  Um, OK.  Thanks for contradicting yourself I guess?


Please define "social welfare." If you can, please tell the IRS, because they can't.
 
2013-06-08 12:16:22 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in.

Um you mean apart from not participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." That's not considered social welfare.

Did you only read the first sentence? I quantified political campaign activity as just that, per the IRS. So, thanks for repeating my point, I guess?

FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.

So they can violate the social welfare provision then.  Um, OK.  Thanks for contradicting yourself I guess?

Please define "social welfare." If you can, please tell the IRS, because they can't.


Because there is no law definitining the limits of "social welfare" for these groups. If the GOP wasn't busy crying wolf, one of their many members in Congress could draft a bill to clarify these issues.
 
2013-06-08 01:30:12 AM

jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.


Is swallowing some kind of automatic reflex with you, or is it that you would never consider spitting under any circumstances? Just curious.
 
2013-06-08 02:11:09 AM

Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.


And that isn't the problem.  The problem was a procedure that was supposed to be political neutral overwhelmingly targeted conservative groups AND when it normally took under 90 days to approve or disapprove, in many instances it took over two years AND the information that was supposed to be confidential was leaked to groups that were politically opposite AND the IRS asked questions that were so overtly politically based that you'd have to be an idiot to think something funny wasn't going on AND not a single one of the targeted groups was denied their tax exempt status so what was the farking holdup?
 
2013-06-08 02:12:54 AM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Or do Issa and the GOP actually enjoy farking that chicken to death on live television while America points and laughs?

America isn't point and laughing.  They are saying that Obama is lying about this.

47% of 1002 people they polled.

Forty-seven percent of Americans say they don't believe Obama compared with 40 percent who say he is being truthful, according to a Bloomberg National Poll of 1,002 adults conducted May 31 through June 3.


47%?  Now where have I heard that number before...

Coincidence?      http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=18133208
 
2013-06-08 02:29:44 AM

OgreMagi: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

And that isn't the problem.  The problem was a procedure that was supposed to be political neutral overwhelmingly targeted conservative groups AND when it normally took under 90 days to approve or disapprove, in many instances it took over two years AND the information that was supposed to be confidential was leaked to groups that were politically opposite AND the IRS asked questions that were so overtly politically based that you'd have to be an idiot to think something funny wasn't going on AND not a single one of the targeted groups was denied their tax exempt status so what was the farking holdup?


AND by "overwhelmingly targeted" they mean 25%. AND by "many instances" they mean "some." AND by "overtly political" they mean, "please explain to us why you qualify for tax exempt status as required by the law". And as far as the hold up, if people aren't complying with their paperwork requirements, then they can't get their f*cking status, now, can they?
 
2013-06-08 02:35:14 AM

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

And that isn't the problem.  The problem was a procedure that was supposed to be political neutral overwhelmingly targeted conservative groups AND when it normally took under 90 days to approve or disapprove, in many instances it took over two years AND the information that was supposed to be confidential was leaked to groups that were politically opposite AND the IRS asked questions that were so overtly politically based that you'd have to be an idiot to think something funny wasn't going on AND not a single one of the targeted groups was denied their tax exempt status so what was the farking holdup?

AND by "overwhelmingly targeted" they mean 25%. AND by "many instances" they mean "some." AND by "overtly political" they mean, "please explain to us why you qualify for tax exempt status as required by the law". And as far as the hold up, if people aren't complying with their paperwork requirements, then they can't get their f*cking status, now, can they?


Wrong.  They were overwhelmingly targeted when compared to the liberal groups applying.

As for the questions.  Go here.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/weirdest-irs-questions- fo r-the-tea-party-views-donors-and-etymology/
 
2013-06-08 03:42:13 AM
Two Internal Revenue Service agents working in the agency's Cincinnati office say higher-ups in Washington directed the targeting of conservative political groups when they applied for tax-exempt status, a contention that directly contradicts claims made by the agency since the scandal erupted last month.

But yeah, keep flogging that "no one was targeted" horse, despite it being long dead.
 
2013-06-08 03:48:51 AM

the_dude_abides: Mrtraveler01: So none of these tea party groups got the tax-exempt status they wanted?

first you give a misleading answer, now you're gonna play word games to rationalize it.

these conservative groups had their applications in limbo for years at a time for no good reason. you think it's ok just because some were eventually approved?


They didn't have to suspend activities while waiting did they?
 
2013-06-08 03:59:32 AM

Without Fail: the_dude_abides: Mrtraveler01: So none of these tea party groups got the tax-exempt status they wanted?

first you give a misleading answer, now you're gonna play word games to rationalize it.

these conservative groups had their applications in limbo for years at a time for no good reason. you think it's ok just because some were eventually approved?

They didn't have to suspend activities while waiting did they?


Look up the phrase, "chilling effect".  But even if it didn't disrupt their activities, it is still wrong.  No group should be treated differently by the government because of their political beliefs.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

/note that political beliefs is not the same as activities.  Obviously if a group was promoting violence, there is something to investigate
 
2013-06-08 04:07:03 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Wessoman: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

THIS.

This....is not true.

Depends what the definition of "be political" that you use


The US tax code uses this one: "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."
 
2013-06-08 04:43:41 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in.

Um you mean apart from not participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." That's not considered social welfare.

Did you only read the first sentence? I quantified political campaign activity as just that, per the IRS. So, thanks for repeating my point, I guess?

FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.


I think you're seriously misreading it.
When 501(c)(4) groups are required to primarily engage in social welfare and are banned from advocating for political candidates, it does not mean they can do 45% political candidate support as long as they spend the remaining 55% on social welfare.
It means that in addition to social welfare work they are allowed to spend time and money on things that are neither social nor political, e.g. human resource management, office space maintainance and self promotion.
 
2013-06-08 05:22:36 AM

OgreMagi: Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

And that isn't the problem.  The problem was a procedure that was supposed to be political neutral overwhelmingly targeted conservative groups AND when it normally took under 90 days to approve or disapprove, in many instances it took over two years AND the information that was supposed to be confidential was leaked to groups that were politically opposite AND the IRS asked questions that were so overtly politically based that you'd have to be an idiot to think something funny wasn't going on AND not a single one of the targeted groups was denied their tax exempt status so what was the farking holdup?

AND by "overwhelmingly targeted" they mean 25%. AND by "many instances" they mean "some." AND by "overtly political" they mean, "please explain to us why you qualify for tax exempt status as required by the law". And as far as the hold up, if people aren't complying with their paperwork requirements, then they can't get their f*cking status, now, can they?

Wrong.  They were overwhelmingly targeted when compared to the liberal groups applying.

As for the questions.  Go here.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/weirdest-irs-questions- fo r-the-tea-party-views-donors-and-etymology/


You're making me so sad. I'm just going to have to forget that this is what groups that wanted tax exempt status because they were claiming to be "non-political social welfare organizations" have had to since the history of forever, and nobody complained until now, because heaven knows the dear darling Taxed Enough Already Party can't POSSIBLY be expected to conform to the same rules and regulations as everyone else in America. Otherwise I might cry, and then I'd have to recall that conservative groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and Planned Parenthood and Aids Project Los Angeles. had to answer such embarassingly political questions back in the day, and that would make me even more sad.

Suck it up, Teahadists. This is what it means to live in America. Don't like it? There are lots of other places where you can not pay taxes and advocate for the political party in power and trample on everyone who disagrees with you. They're not as nice as America, but they do exist.
 
2013-06-08 05:34:29 AM
Oh, if those are impossibly "weird," "chilling," or disruptive questions that reek of McCarthyism, then SOMEBODY needs to go back through their history books and look up McCarthyism. Here's your list in full, from HALF A DOZEN (!) letters sent, between 2010 and 2012 (that's two years, she said helpfully). So six letters, over a 24-month period, and the most awful, intrusive, and bizarre questions they could come up with were:

Provide a list of all issues that are important to your organization. Indicate your position regarding each issue.
""Please explain in detail the derivation of your organization's name." (in a letter to the Ohio-based 1851 Center for  Constitutional Law)
"Please explain in detail your organization's involvement with the Tea Party.""Provide details regarding your relationship with Justin Binik-Thomas." (a Cincinnati-area Tea-Party activist)
"Provide information regarding the Butler County Teen Age Republicans and your relationship.
""Submit the following information relating to your past and present directors, officers, and key employees: a) Provide a resume for each.
""The names of the donors, contributors, and grantors. ... The amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.
"The names of persons from your organization and the amount of time they spent on the event or program." (for events)
"Provide copies of the handbills you distributed at your monthly meetings.
""Fully describe your youth outreach program with the local school."
"Please provide copies of all your current web pages, including your Blog posts. Please provide copies of all of your newsletters, bulletins, flyers, newsletters or any other media or literature you have disseminated to your members or others. Please provide copies of stories and articles that have been published about you."
"Are you on Facebook or other social networking sites? If yes, provide copies of these pages."
"Provide copies of the agendas and minutes of your Board meetings and, if applicable, members ship meetings, including a description of legislative and electoral issues discussed, and whether candidates for political office were invited to address the meeting."
"Do your issue-related advocacy communications compare to the positions of candidates or slates of candidates on these issues with your positions? Provide copies of these communications. What percentage do these constitute of your issue-related advocacy communications?"
"Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for political office or political party? If so describe fully the nature of that relationship."
"Apart from your responses to the preceding, estimate the percentage of your time and what percentage of your resources you will devote to activities in the 2012 election cycle, in which you will explicitly or implicitly support or oppose a candidate, candidates or slates of candidates, for public office."

If that's the worst that the delicate sensibilities of the Taxed Enough Already Party can cope with, then they've lead a desperately sheltered life, and I feel truly very sorry for them. It's really very sad that it's more than they can bear to have to ACTUALLY EXPLAIN what it is they do, and why they're so very not a political organization. Yes, my heart truly bleeds that they should have to justify their tax-free status LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, and that the rules won't be bent for them because they're so patriotic and pure-minded.


Oh, and all these questions weren't in every letter, or in all of them. Or even all the time. They were in, according to the ABC Blog, found in roughly half a dozen IRS questionnaires sent to tea party groups from 2010 to 2012. So, some of them. Over the course of two years. That's just SO fascist, I could swoon.
 
2013-06-08 07:09:30 AM
This is Obama's Chiquitita
 
2013-06-08 07:43:38 AM
I liked the Muslim Broadcast Network's coverage of this better.
 
2013-06-08 07:59:14 AM

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in.

Um you mean apart from not participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." That's not considered social welfare.

Did you only read the first sentence? I quantified political campaign activity as just that, per the IRS. So, thanks for repeating my point, I guess?

FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.

I think you're seriously misreading it.
When 501(c)(4) groups are required to primarily engage in social welfare and are banned from advocating for political candidates, it does not mean they can do 45% political candidate support as long as they spend the remaining 55% on social welfare.
It means that in addition to social welfare work they are allowed to spend time and money on things that are neither social nor political, e.g. human resource management, office space maintainance and self promotion.


I seriously doubt I am misreading it. Considering I have represented groups of this nature before the IRS, I'd like to think I have some first hand knowledge of what I am talking about.

Primary activity as it pertains to political campaign activity is a facts and circumstances test, which makes it very difficult to put a number to.

The group I represented was political on nature in that they engaged primarily in lobbying for the passage of laws related to the stated mission. They were overtly political including advocating for, and even providing some financial support to, a slate of like minded candidates.
 
2013-06-08 08:47:12 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Primary activity as it pertains to political campaign activity is a facts and circumstances test, which makes it very difficult to put a number to.


I could have sworn that the word "primarily" is used as a qualifier of "social welfare", not of the ban on campaigning for candidates.
If you're banned from comitting murder, and required to primarily spend your work hours sweeping floors, you're not allowed to spend a third of your time slaughtering people as long as you work really hard on those floors the rest of the time.
 
2013-06-08 08:49:44 AM

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Primary activity as it pertains to political campaign activity is a facts and circumstances test, which makes it very difficult to put a number to.

I could have sworn that the word "primarily" is used as a qualifier of "social welfare", not of the ban on campaigning for candidates.
If you're banned from comitting murder, and required to primarily spend your work hours sweeping floors, you're not allowed to spend a third of your time slaughtering people as long as you work really hard on those floors the rest of the time.


You could have sworn incorrectly.
 
2013-06-08 09:07:59 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You could have sworn incorrectly.


Often have. But saying "I play an expert on the Internet and you're wrong" is not much of an argument.
 
2013-06-08 09:24:57 AM

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You could have sworn incorrectly.

Often have. But saying "I play an expert on the Internet and you're wrong" is not much of an argument.



Political Aspects of §501(c)(4) Social Welfare Organizations
I.     A "Social Welfare" or "Action" Organization.


A.     "Social welfare" means "the common good and general welfare" or "civic betterments and social improvements."1.     Focus of organization's purpose must be to benefit the community or society as a whole, not just the organization's members and their families or other select individuals. IRS accepted community purposes include: rehabilitation and job placement of members; and, promoting legal rights of a segment of society.2.     The primary activity of an organization cannot be to carry on a business in a manner similar to a for profit business. However, §501(c)(4) organizations can engage in a business related to an exempt purpose and earn profits from it.3.     Neither can a §501(c)(4) organization be operated primarily as "a social club for the benefit, pleasure, or recreation of its members." However, social functions for the benefit of members may be carried out if incidental.B.     An "Action Organization" is an organization which devotes a substantial part of its activities to influencing legislation by propaganda or otherwise. This includes both direct lobbying and grassroots lobbying, i.e.:1.     carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation; or2.     urging individuals to contact their legislators to propose, support, or oppose legislation.II.     Governmental Activities.
A.     Lobbying Activities. A §501(c)(4) organization may devote a substantial part of its activities for lobbying purposes.B.     Political Campaigning Activities.1.     A §501(c)(4) organization may participate in lawful political campaign activities involving the nomination or election of public officials without adversely affecting its exempt status, provided such activities are insubstantial in relation to its overall activities.a.     Campaign activity includes participation or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. A candidate is any contestant for elective office.b.     Political campaign activities relate to individual candidates, whereas lobbying activities relate to social issues and laws.c.     Participation in a campaign includes publishing or distributing statements made either by a candidate or by someone else directed at a candidate.

Also see IRS Publication 4221-NC, Page 5:
Section 501(c)(4), (5), and (6) organizations may engage in political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office.
Political campaign activities are those that influence or attempt to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to a federal, state, or local public office. In order to retain its tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4), (5) or (6), an organization must ensure that its political campaign activities do not constitute the organization's primary activity

In general, section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5) or 501(c)(6) tax-exempt organizations may engage in an unlimited amount of lobbying (i.e., attempting to influence legislation), provided that the lobbying is related to the organization's exempt purpose. An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for purposes of proposing, supporting or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.
 
2013-06-08 09:31:48 AM

the_dude_abides: these conservative groups had their applications in limbo for years at a time for no good reason. you think it's ok just because some were eventually approved?


dude, give it up. The cadre of fark lib retards will continue to circle endlessly with the "But nobody got denied" and "its just a questionnaire" arguments until the 48 hour thread window expires.  the IRS has already apologized for wrongdoing and targeting, delays and scrutiny applied to conservative groups.  The scrutiny and delays are the issue, not any denials.

There's no reason to hold up a group's application for 3 years, or ask a group member what sort of books they read.
 
2013-06-08 09:39:30 AM
My organization, Republicans For Republicans And No One But Republicans, was one of those targeted... Suspected unfairly by the IRS of not being a "social welfare" organization.

Can you believe the gall of those guys?
 
2013-06-08 09:54:40 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You could have sworn incorrectly.

Often have. But saying "I play an expert on the Internet and you're wrong" is not much of an argument.

Political Aspects of §501(c)(4) Social Welfare Organizations...


That's more like it, although the parts you bolded about lobbying activity are irrelevant to what were talking about.
As for campaigning for candidates, I see I was wrong about it being completely banned, but also that you're wrong, when you claim they can campaign as much as they want as long as it's not their primary activity. More than that, it actually has to be insubstantial in comparison with their other activities. So they can't do e.g. 45% campaigning and 55% social welfare.
 
2013-06-08 09:59:33 AM

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You could have sworn incorrectly.

Often have. But saying "I play an expert on the Internet and you're wrong" is not much of an argument.

Political Aspects of §501(c)(4) Social Welfare Organizations...

That's more like it, although the parts you bolded about lobbying activity are irrelevant to what were talking about.
As for campaigning for candidates, I see I was wrong about it being completely banned, but also that you're wrong, when you claim they can campaign as much as they want as long as it's not their primary activity. More than that, it actually has to be insubstantial in comparison with their other activities. So they can't do e.g. 45% campaigning and 55% social welfare.


I dont believe I ever said that they can campaign as much as they want. I believe i said that they can engage in unlimited lobbying pursuant to their stated mission and that they can campaign for candidates so long as it does not constitute a substantial portion of activity.
 
2013-06-08 10:01:54 AM

o5iiawah: the_dude_abides: these conservative groups had their applications in limbo for years at a time for no good reason. you think it's ok just because some were eventually approved?

dude, give it up. The cadre of fark lib retards will continue to circle endlessly with the "But nobody got denied" and "its just a questionnaire" arguments until the 48 hour thread window expires.  the IRS has already apologized for wrongdoing and targeting, delays and scrutiny applied to conservative groups.  The scrutiny and delays are the issue, not any denials.

There's no reason to hold up a group's application for 3 years, or ask a group member what sort of books they read.


Was it a scandal when the NAACP were investigated by the IRS for almost two years?
Honest question, I wasn't paying much attention to US domestic politics at the time.
 
2013-06-08 10:05:36 AM

Dansker: o5iiawah: the_dude_abides: these conservative groups had their applications in limbo for years at a time for no good reason. you think it's ok just because some were eventually approved?

dude, give it up. The cadre of fark lib retards will continue to circle endlessly with the "But nobody got denied" and "its just a questionnaire" arguments until the 48 hour thread window expires.  the IRS has already apologized for wrongdoing and targeting, delays and scrutiny applied to conservative groups.  The scrutiny and delays are the issue, not any denials.

There's no reason to hold up a group's application for 3 years, or ask a group member what sort of books they read.

Was it a scandal when the NAACP were investigated by the IRS for almost two years?
Honest question, I wasn't paying much attention to US domestic politics at the time.


To be honest, I didn't even know about it until this IRS scandal popped up.

So no...no it wasn't. But IOKIYR
 
2013-06-08 10:15:57 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker:
As for campaigning for candidates, I see I was wrong about it being completely banned, but also that you're wrong, when you claim they can campaign as much as they want as long as it's not their primary activity. More than that, it actually has to be insubstantial in comparison with their other activities. So they can't do e.g. 45% campaigning and 55% social welfare.

I dont believe I ever said that they can campaign as much as they want. I believe i said that they can engage in unlimited lobbying pursuant to their stated mission and that they can campaign for candidates so long as it does not constitute a substantial portion of activity.


I added "as much as they want" in paraphrasing, but that doesn't change the substance of what you said:
The_Six_Fingered_Man:
FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.

"Not primary" does not necessarily equal "insubstantial"
 
2013-06-08 10:18:54 AM

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker:
As for campaigning for candidates, I see I was wrong about it being completely banned, but also that you're wrong, when you claim they can campaign as much as they want as long as it's not their primary activity. More than that, it actually has to be insubstantial in comparison with their other activities. So they can't do e.g. 45% campaigning and 55% social welfare.

I dont believe I ever said that they can campaign as much as they want. I believe i said that they can engage in unlimited lobbying pursuant to their stated mission and that they can campaign for candidates so long as it does not constitute a substantial portion of activity.

I added "as much as they want" in paraphrasing, but that doesn't change the substance of what you said:The_Six_Fingered_Man:
FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.
"Not primary" does not necessarily equal "insubstantial"


Which i backed up with the relevant section of Pub 4221-NC.

In order to retain its tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4), (5) or (6), an organization must ensure that its political campaign activities do not constitute the organization's primary activity
 
2013-06-08 10:27:01 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: "Not primary" does not necessarily equal "insubstantial"

Which i backed up with the relevant section of Pub 4221-NC.


They obviously supplement each other, but their wordings are incongruent and leaves room for misinterpretation. So, another honest question: Which one carries most legal weight, IRS publications or the Tax Code?
 
2013-06-08 10:58:01 AM

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: "Not primary" does not necessarily equal "insubstantial"

Which i backed up with the relevant section of Pub 4221-NC.

They obviously supplement each other, but their wordings are incongruent and leaves room for misinterpretation. So, another honest question: Which one carries most legal weight, IRS publications or the Tax Code?


IRS Publications are the interpretation of the tax code is plain English as interpreted by the code as well as relevant tax court cases and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Treasury. Publications are taxpayer guidance of the raw code.
 
2013-06-08 11:10:18 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: "Not primary" does not necessarily equal "insubstantial"

Which i backed up with the relevant section of Pub 4221-NC.

They obviously supplement each other, but their wordings are incongruent and leaves room for misinterpretation. So, another honest question: Which one carries most legal weight, IRS publications or the Tax Code?

IRS Publications are the interpretation of the tax code is plain English as interpreted by the code as well as relevant tax court cases and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Treasury. Publications are taxpayer guidance of the raw code.


So when the IRS publication says "not their primary activity" it doesn't negate the law's requirement of "insubstantial activity", right?
 
2013-06-08 11:13:54 AM

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: "Not primary" does not necessarily equal "insubstantial"

Which i backed up with the relevant section of Pub 4221-NC.

They obviously supplement each other, but their wordings are incongruent and leaves room for misinterpretation. So, another honest question: Which one carries most legal weight, IRS publications or the Tax Code?

IRS Publications are the interpretation of the tax code is plain English as interpreted by the code as well as relevant tax court cases and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Treasury. Publications are taxpayer guidance of the raw code.

So when the IRS publication says "not their primary activity" it doesn't negate the law's requirement of "insubstantial activity", right?


Correct.
 
2013-06-08 11:15:30 AM

OgreMagi: Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

And that isn't the problem.  The problem was a procedure that was supposed to be political neutral overwhelmingly targeted conservative groups AND when it normally took under 90 days to approve or disapprove, in many instances it took over two years AND the information that was supposed to be confidential was leaked to groups that were politically opposite AND the IRS asked questions that were so overtly politically based that you'd have to be an idiot to think something funny wasn't going on AND not a single one of the targeted groups was denied their tax exempt status so what was the farking holdup?

AND by "overwhelmingly targeted" they mean 25%. AND by "many instances" they mean "some." AND by "overtly political" they mean, "please explain to us why you qualify for tax exempt status as required by the law". And as far as the hold up, if people aren't complying with their paperwork requirements, then they can't get their f*cking status, now, can they?

Wrong.  They were overwhelmingly targeted when compared to the liberal groups applying.

As for the questions.  Go here.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/weirdest-irs-questions- fo r-the-tea-party-views-donors-and-etymology/


25 to 33% isn't overwhelmingly targeted and considering the worst thing that happened was that they got a questionnaire while still being allowed to continually operate this "scandal" is a real yawner.
 
2013-06-08 11:17:23 AM

Dansker: o5iiawah: the_dude_abides: these conservative groups had their applications in limbo for years at a time for no good reason. you think it's ok just because some were eventually approved?

dude, give it up. The cadre of fark lib retards will continue to circle endlessly with the "But nobody got denied" and "its just a questionnaire" arguments until the 48 hour thread window expires.  the IRS has already apologized for wrongdoing and targeting, delays and scrutiny applied to conservative groups.  The scrutiny and delays are the issue, not any denials.

There's no reason to hold up a group's application for 3 years, or ask a group member what sort of books they read.

Was it a scandal when the NAACP were investigated by the IRS for almost two years?
Honest question, I wasn't paying much attention to US domestic politics at the time.


No but you're responding to a couple of third rate trolls so there's that.
 
2013-06-08 12:00:56 PM

Fart_Machine:
No but you're responding to a couple of third rate trolls so there's that.


Everybody needs a hobby. Don't judge me.
 
2013-06-08 12:36:04 PM

Dansker: Was it a scandal when the NAACP were investigated by the IRS for almost two years?
Honest question, I wasn't paying much attention to US domestic politics at the time.


what does any alleged targeting of the NAACP have anything to do with this incident?

If Obama sent crateloads of automatic weapons over to juntas and rebel groups all over the world would it be peachy fine and Hunky dory because Reagan did it too?

The "but Bush.." arguments are getting more than tired and a sign that there isn't much load left for you morons to lick up.
 
2013-06-08 12:38:37 PM

o5iiawah: Dansker: Was it a scandal when the NAACP were investigated by the IRS for almost two years?
Honest question, I wasn't paying much attention to US domestic politics at the time.

what does any alleged targeting of the NAACP have anything to do with this incident?

If Obama sent crateloads of automatic weapons over to juntas and rebel groups all over the world would it be peachy fine and Hunky dory because Reagan did it too?

The "but Bush.." arguments are getting more than tired and a sign that there isn't much load left for you morons to lick up.


I think the argument they're trying to make is that when similar stuff happened in the past, the folks on the right were silent about it. It was only after a Democrat became president that it suddenly became a huge scandal.

They're just pointing out the hypocrisy from the right is all.
 
2013-06-08 12:56:55 PM

Wessoman: Warlordtrooper: jehovahs witness protection: And the Fark regulars swallow Obama's load to hide any evidence.

Tax exempt groups are not allowed to be political.   What the hell is so hard about that to understand.

THIS.


From my understanding is there are different "classes" of tax-exempt.  A 501(c)(3) group can't spend money on political activities, but a 501(c)(4) can.  However, the 501(c)(4) group's primary purpose must be social welfare.  I'm about 99% sure these Tea Party groups' primary purpose aren't social welfare.
 
2013-06-08 01:05:59 PM

o5iiawah: what does any alleged targeting of the NAACP have anything to do with this incident?


Your using the word "alleged" in that situation says volumes.
 
2013-06-08 01:14:19 PM
Remove the word "is" from my previous post.
 
2013-06-08 02:23:58 PM

Mrtraveler01: They're just pointing out the hypocrisy from the right is all.


Oh, well as long as hypocrisy is the only thing people can stand on, that's fine.
 
2013-06-08 02:27:07 PM

Fart_Machine: Your using the word "alleged" in that situation says volumes.


So the IRS is a problem in both republican and democratic administrations.  Sounds like you're against the power and autonomy given to the IRS.
Thanks for agreeing.
 
2013-06-08 02:28:07 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: ITT: People who say that 501(c)(4) groups cannot be political, yet ignore that there are PACs with that designation.


The silly thing in all of this is how the IRS overrides the statutory language "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare" and go with 'ok just 50%+ of the time'.  The former is a relatively-simple determination; the latter presents a mess.
 
2013-06-08 02:47:18 PM

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Your using the word "alleged" in that situation says volumes.

So the IRS is a problem in both republican and democratic administrations.  Sounds like you're against the power and autonomy given to the IRS.
Thanks for agreeing.


So you don't need to feel like a victim anymore. That should be refreshing.
 
2013-06-08 04:08:35 PM
Hm, after I posted that he left. How sad that makes me....
 
2013-06-08 04:49:47 PM
Let's repeat the farking simple truth.

The two IRS agents who are the center of this controversy have already stated they were ORDERED TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS by higher ups in Washington.

So why are you still arguing that no one was targeted?  The undeniable fact is they were targeted.  We have it on record and your continued denial of it is why you are a moron.
 
2013-06-08 04:56:50 PM

o5iiawah: Dansker: Was it a scandal when the NAACP were investigated by the IRS for almost two years?
Honest question, I wasn't paying much attention to US domestic politics at the time.

what does any alleged targeting of the NAACP have anything to do with this incident?

If Obama sent crateloads of automatic weapons over to juntas and rebel groups all over the world would it be peachy fine and Hunky dory because Reagan did it too?

The "but Bush.." arguments are getting more than tired and a sign that there isn't much load left for you morons to lick up.


Wow. So much for honest inquiry. I'm beginning to see how curiosity killed that cat.
 
2013-06-08 05:24:32 PM

OgreMagi: Let's repeat the farking simple truth.

The two IRS agents who are the center of this controversy have already stated they were ORDERED TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS by higher ups in Washington.

So why are you still arguing that no one was targeted?  The undeniable fact is they were targeted.  We have it on record and your continued denial of it is why you are a moron.


Well if the 700 Club crack news team says so then why should I bother with the in-depth investigation provided by the IG report.
 
2013-06-08 05:34:02 PM

Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: Let's repeat the farking simple truth.

The two IRS agents who are the center of this controversy have already stated they were ORDERED TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS by higher ups in Washington.

So why are you still arguing that no one was targeted?  The undeniable fact is they were targeted.  We have it on record and your continued denial of it is why you are a moron.

Well if the 700 Club crack news team says so then why should I bother with the in-depth investigation provided by the IG report.


The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee provided partial transcripts of interviews with the agents which revealed this information.

Yet you still sit there and pretend that was made up?
 
2013-06-08 05:47:47 PM

OgreMagi: Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: Let's repeat the farking simple truth.

The two IRS agents who are the center of this controversy have already stated they were ORDERED TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS by higher ups in Washington.

So why are you still arguing that no one was targeted?  The undeniable fact is they were targeted.  We have it on record and your continued denial of it is why you are a moron.

Well if the 700 Club crack news team says so then why should I bother with the in-depth investigation provided by the IG report.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee provided partial transcripts of interviews with the agents which revealed this information.

Yet you still sit there and pretend that was made up?


They must have been really bad at it since only 1/4 were conservative groups and 1100 religious organizations were left alone for actively campaigning against Obama.
 
2013-06-08 07:53:08 PM

Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: Let's repeat the farking simple truth.

The two IRS agents who are the center of this controversy have already stated they were ORDERED TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS by higher ups in Washington.

So why are you still arguing that no one was targeted?  The undeniable fact is they were targeted.  We have it on record and your continued denial of it is why you are a moron.

Well if the 700 Club crack news team says so then why should I bother with the in-depth investigation provided by the IG report.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee provided partial transcripts of interviews with the agents which revealed this information.

Yet you still sit there and pretend that was made up?

They must have been really bad at it since only 1/4 were conservative groups and 1100 religious organizations were left alone for actively campaigning against Obama.


So even when presented with undeniable proof that certain groups were targeted for their political leaning, you are still going to deny it happened?  Your mother must have dropped you on your head a lot when you were a baby, because that's the only explanation.  I'm done with you.  Arguing with the brain damaged is a waste of my time.
 
2013-06-08 08:19:55 PM

OgreMagi: Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: Let's repeat the farking simple truth.

The two IRS agents who are the center of this controversy have already stated they were ORDERED TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS by higher ups in Washington.

So why are you still arguing that no one was targeted?  The undeniable fact is they were targeted.  We have it on record and your continued denial of it is why you are a moron.

Well if the 700 Club crack news team says so then why should I bother with the in-depth investigation provided by the IG report.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee provided partial transcripts of interviews with the agents which revealed this information.

Yet you still sit there and pretend that was made up?

They must have been really bad at it since only 1/4 were conservative groups and 1100 religious organizations were left alone for actively campaigning against Obama.

So even when presented with undeniable proof that certain groups were targeted for their political leaning, you are still going to deny it happened?  Your mother must have dropped you on your head a lot when you were a baby, because that's the only explanation.  I'm done with you.  Arguing with the brain damaged is a waste of my time.


Yup best to insult me than read the actual IG report. Say megadittos to Rush for me you poor victim.
 
2013-06-08 08:39:20 PM

Fart_Machine: Yup best to insult me than read the actual IG report. Say megadittos to Rush for me you poor victim.


Fart_Machine is desperately trying to out-stupid Zeppelininthesky

in this thread there are direct quotes from the president of the united states AND the inspector general that destroy your idiotic claims... you're just embarrassing yourself at this point
 
2013-06-08 09:10:41 PM

the_dude_abides: Fart_Machine: Yup best to insult me than read the actual IG report. Say megadittos to Rush for me you poor victim.

Fart_Machine is desperately trying to out-stupid Zeppelininthesky

in this thread there are direct quotes from the president of the united states AND the inspector general that destroy your idiotic claims... you're just embarrassing yourself at this point


Don't bother.  I already pointed out that Obama has disavowed what happened.  All he does is ignore all the facts, then accuse me of being a Rush fan and tea party member.  I can't stand Rush and think the Tea Party is nothing but a bunch of useful idiots for the fundies.  I am constantly astounded by how much people are willing to defend the president or ignore problems because they negatively affected "the other party".
 
2013-06-08 09:38:08 PM

OgreMagi: All he does is ignore all the facts


I presented you with facts and linked the actual IG report above.  Still you want to play the victim.  You're truly pathetic.
 
2013-06-08 10:49:18 PM

Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: All he does is ignore all the facts

I presented you with facts and linked the actual IG report above.  Still you want to play the victim.  You're truly pathetic.


They just ignore facts.
 
Displayed 296 of 296 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report