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  
•       •       •

1743 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 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.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report