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  
•       •       •

1739 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 296 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report