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

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