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 09:44:56 PM

Cletus C.: Wrong answer. "Flagged" is different than keyword targeting.


"attacks by terrorists" is different than "terrorist attacks"!
 
2013-06-07 09:45:47 PM

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

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

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

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

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

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

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

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

maybe he did. Or maybe the whole point of polling is to get an idea of a population's feeling on an issue by only asking a small subset of that population


Um yeah. The point is you don't just rely on one poll. Silver certainly didn't.
 
2013-06-07 09:47:54 PM

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

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

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

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

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

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

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

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

maybe he did. Or maybe the whole point of polling is to get an idea of a population's feeling on an issue by only asking a small subset of that population

Um yeah. The point is you don't just rely on one poll. Silver certainly didn't.


That was my point. One poll is not proof, or really representative of everyone.
 
2013-06-07 09:48:25 PM

djkutch: Does anyone know what charitable works these targeted conservative groups in question would be doing?


They help the rich get their taxes lowered.
 
2013-06-07 09:59:22 PM

gameshowhost: djkutch: Does anyone know what charitable works these targeted conservative groups in question would be doing?

They help the rich get their taxes lowered.


And how many, with extra scrutiny, were actually denied status? This important in determining the actual length and breadth of the scandal.
 
2013-06-07 10:00:34 PM

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

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

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

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

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

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

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

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

maybe he did. Or maybe the whole point of polling is to get an idea of a population's feeling on an issue by only asking a small subset of that population

Um yeah. The point is you don't just rely on one poll. Silver certainly didn't.

That was my point. One poll is not proof, or really representative of everyone.


True but the only thing that matters to Republicans is the perception. They don't care about facts, they care about convincing the public of a false narrative. They failed with Obama's birth certificate, arugula, fancy mustard, the Bin Laden killing, Benghazi, and many more wolf-esque "scandals" that I don't remember. While the derp brigade may currently have the public believing the narrative, the more facts that are relieved the more the GOP narrative falls apart.

If the GOP was smart they would drop this and let the low information public continue to think that this is terrible and all Obama's fault. Of course the GOP is not smart and they will continue farking that chicken until Obama has a 71% approval rating.
 
2013-06-07 10:13:16 PM

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

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

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

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

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

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

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

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


I never said it did.
I originally responded to the idea that America is just pointing and laughing at the GOP farking this chicken while the poll shows that more Americans believe that he is lying than telling the truth.
 
2013-06-07 10:17:05 PM

Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?


wtf are you referring to?
 
2013-06-07 10:18:24 PM

djkutch: gameshowhost: djkutch: Does anyone know what charitable works these targeted conservative groups in question would be doing?

They help the rich get their taxes lowered.

And how many, with extra scrutiny, were actually denied status? This important in determining the actual length and breadth of the scandal.


We don't have enough info to make an honest determination, do we?
 
2013-06-07 10:19:12 PM

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

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


No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.
 
2013-06-07 10:19:28 PM

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

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

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

Looks like you don't know how polls work.

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

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

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

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

I never said it did.
I originally responded to the idea that America is just pointing and laughing at the GOP farking this chicken while the poll shows that more Americans believe that he is lying than telling the truth.


Actually, they are. Anyone with half a brain knows that this "scandal" is a bunch of bullshiat. Everyone knows that the GOP are trying desperately to blame this on Obama because Benghazi flopped, umbrellagate flopped, the AP spying thing flopped, and all the other imagined "scandals" flopped.
 
2013-06-07 10:20:26 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?

wtf are you referring to?


It is very obvious that you do not know how these groups work, or why they are tax-exempt.
 
2013-06-07 10:20:42 PM

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

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

As all other Obama worshipers, you are delusional.



Worshipers?  Are you even trying anymore?  You used to have sharp enough hooks to catch a small minnow once in a while, now you're just resorting to throwing a half stick of tnt into the pond?

0/10


With a little bit of dedication and focus, you can get back on top of the troll game in no time!
 
2013-06-07 10:23:27 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?

wtf are you referring to?

It is very obvious that you do not know how these groups work, or why they are tax-exempt.


What exactly did I say that was wrong about 501(c)(4)?

You keep having ridiculous strawmen (Me saying "Some Guy", Me complaining about Organizing for Action?  Really??)  that I keep proving you wrong on.

This is just your latest one.

But don't take my word on it, poll 1,000,000 people to get an accurate poll of the US.
LOL.
 
2013-06-07 10:29:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

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

No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.


Oh, the humanity:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf
 
2013-06-07 10:33:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?

wtf are you referring to?

It is very obvious that you do not know how these groups work, or why they are tax-exempt.

What exactly did I say that was wrong about 501(c)(4)?

You keep having ridiculous strawmen (Me saying "Some Guy", Me complaining about Organizing for Action?  Really??)  that I keep proving you wrong on.

This is just your latest one.

But don't take my word on it, poll 1,000,000 people to get an accurate poll of the US.
LOL.


I find it hilarious that you have failed at all your arguments on how exactly this is a scandal of Obama's doing and have resorted to pointing out a single poll shows that the public is currently believing the GOP narrative.

The public believed the GOP lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for a period of time as well. The American public is quick to fall for a convincing lie but very few have lasting value and IRSgahzigate is shaping up to have a very short shelf life.
 
2013-06-07 10:34:19 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?

wtf are you referring to?

It is very obvious that you do not know how these groups work, or why they are tax-exempt.

What exactly did I say that was wrong about 501(c)(4)?

You keep having ridiculous strawmen (Me saying "Some Guy", Me complaining about Organizing for Action?  Really??)  that I keep proving you wrong on.

This is just your latest one.

But don't take my word on it, poll 1,000,000 people to get an accurate poll of the US.
LOL.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?

wtf are you referring to?

It is very obvious that you do not know how these groups work, or why they are tax-exempt.

What exactly did I say that was wrong about 501(c)(4)?

You keep having ridiculous strawmen (Me saying "Some Guy", Me complaining about Organizing for Action?  Really??)  that I keep proving you wrong on.

This is just your latest one.

But don't take my word on it, poll 1,000,000 people to get an accurate poll of the US.
LOL.


If you look at the actual rules on the IRS website for 501(c)(4) groups, you will notice that you are wrong as to what these groups can do or cannot do.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm95.pdf
 
2013-06-07 10:43:53 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

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

No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.

Oh, the humanity:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf


Keep trying.
That is not the supplemental questionaire that was sent out.
you aren't even trying anymore, are you?

here
 
2013-06-07 10:46:14 PM
If they were "conservative" groups, then they were political, and not only should they have been examined, they shouldn't have gotten the exemption.
 
2013-06-07 10:47:54 PM

Zeppelininthesky: If you look at the actual rules on the IRS website for 501(c)(4) groups, you will notice that you are wrong as to what these groups can do or cannot do.

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


Everything I said is consistent with that document.
Tell me what I said that is not.

Or is this another of your strawmen?  (hint:  it is).
 
2013-06-07 10:48:53 PM

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

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

As all other Obama worshipers, you are delusional.


Worshipers?  Are you even trying anymore?  You used to have sharp enough hooks to catch a small minnow once in a while, now you're just resorting to throwing a half stick of tnt into the pond?

0/10


With a little bit of dedication and focus, you can get back on top of the troll game in no time!


Dude, he's admitted to serious, DT wetbrain type alcoholism, drug addiction and strokes

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

just in case, here's another poll you can pretend doesn't exist

"Sixty-eight percent of respondents- 80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of independents - said they think the IRS targeting was motivated by politics, rather than adherence to the tax code policy."


Yep, polls are what's important. Everything should be decided by polls. Unscientific ones, too. Good ones would have to be unskewed.
 
2013-06-07 10:49:43 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

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

No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.

Oh, the humanity:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf

Keep trying.
That is not the supplemental questionaire that was sent out.
you aren't even trying anymore, are you?

here


And to think, the Tea Party had to jump through those hoops just because they didn't want to disclose their donors.
 
2013-06-07 10:51:17 PM
ITT: People who say that 501(c)(4) groups cannot be political, yet ignore that there are PACs with that designation.
 
2013-06-07 10:52:35 PM
The_Six_Fingered_Man: derpderpderpderpdeprlibslibsderpderp

Ahh, troll accounts coming out!
 
2013-06-07 10:53:24 PM

max_pooper: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: how is your reading up on statistics going?

How is that reading up on how 501(c)(4) groups work?

wtf are you referring to?

It is very obvious that you do not know how these groups work, or why they are tax-exempt.

What exactly did I say that was wrong about 501(c)(4)?

You keep having ridiculous strawmen (Me saying "Some Guy", Me complaining about Organizing for Action?  Really??)  that I keep proving you wrong on.

This is just your latest one.

But don't take my word on it, poll 1,000,000 people to get an accurate poll of the US.
LOL.


I find it even funnier that you need to resort to lies and strawmen.

I find it hilarious that you have failed at all your arguments on how exactly this is a scandal of Obama's doing

Strawman alert.  Where did I say this was a scandal of Obama's doing?

and have resorted to pointing out a single poll shows that the public is currently believing the GOP narrative.

Strawman alert.  I used that poll in response to someone who said that they are just pointing and laughing when in fact more think that Obama is lying.

The public believed the GOP lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for a period of time as well.

So?  The public also believed that Obama would be all Hopey and Changey and transparent.  They were wrong about that too.
 
2013-06-07 10:55:01 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

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

No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.

Oh, the humanity:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf

Keep trying.
That is not the supplemental questionaire that was sent out.
you aren't even trying anymore, are you?

here

And to think, the Tea Party had to jump through those hoops just because they didn't want to disclose their donors.


Do you know why they didn't want to disclose their donors?
(hint:  check out the SCOTUS ruling about the NAACP way back)
 
2013-06-07 10:57:00 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

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

No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.

Oh, the humanity:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf

Keep trying.
That is not the supplemental questionaire that was sent out.
you aren't even trying anymore, are you?

here


Whoops, I linked the wrong site. Here is the correct one:  http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/16/irs-targeted-liberal-groups-w i th-same-letter-sent-to-tea-party-groups/

Here are the actual letters sent to the liberal group Progress Texas:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141747107/IRS-Confirmation-of-Tax-Exempt-S ta tus-Progress-Texas-6-15-12

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141747252/IRS-Request-for-More-Information -P rogress-Texas-Feb-2012

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141747134/IRS-March-2011-Letter-Notificati on -of-Receipt
 
2013-06-07 10:57:03 PM

ghare: If they were "conservative" groups, then they were political, and not only should they have been examined, they shouldn't have gotten the exemption.


yeah, unless you want to actually base your decision on what the IRS says:

Organization A conducts research,seminars, forums, and other educational programs for thepublic on issues of public concern. It also engages insubstantial lobbying activities. Its activities are under thedirection of a Board of Directors consisting of prominentindividuals with backgrounds in academics and/orgovernment. While A's philosophy on the issues isgenerally consistent with that of a major political party, itconducts its activities in a non-partisan manner and isnot affiliated in any way with the political party. B'sactivities are primarily "educational"; accordingly, itqualifies for exemption under IRC 501(c)(4)
 
2013-06-07 11:09:33 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: If you look at the actual rules on the IRS website for 501(c)(4) groups, you will notice that you are wrong as to what these groups can do or cannot do.

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

Everything I said is consistent with that document.
Tell me what I said that is not.

Or is this another of your strawmen?  (hint:  it is).


Reg.  1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i) provides that an organization is operated 
exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in 
promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the 
community, i.e., primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterment and 
social improvements. Whether an organization is "primarily" engaged in 
promoting social welfare is a "facts and circumstances" test.
 
2013-06-07 11:10:23 PM

ghare: The_Six_Fingered_Man: derpderpderpderpdeprlibslibsderpderp

Ahh, troll accounts coming out!


What an erudite rebuttal of my point.
 
2013-06-07 11:12:50 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: ITT: People who say that 501(c)(4) groups cannot be political, yet ignore that there are PACs with that designation.


They can be political, but there is a limit to how political they can get.
 
2013-06-07 11:13:28 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: Looks like the IRS sent the liberal groups the same exact questionnaire.

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

No, FTFA it does not say they got the exact same questionnaire.
It said three groups face inquiries

The questionnaire is a completely different thing than getting a letter from the IRS questioning your status.

Oh, the humanity:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf

Keep trying.
That is not the supplemental questionaire that was sent out.
you aren't even trying anymore, are you?

here

And to think, the Tea Party had to jump through those hoops just because they didn't want to disclose their donors.

Do you know why they didn't want to disclose their donors?
(hint:  check out the SCOTUS ruling about the NAACP way back)


NAACP did not want their donors disclosed because they were getting harassed. The conservative groups are using this loophole to funnel cash to where they want without public scrutiny.
 
2013-06-07 11:33:39 PM

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


That comes from the USA Today article linked in this thread, and it's a lie. 27 months to approve versus 9 months  at the fastest. USA Today doesn't identify what about these groups make them seem "liberal," nor does it give us an "average" figure. They just say "in as little as."
 
2013-06-07 11:35:56 PM

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

actually, that is exactly what the IG report says:

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

that's a DIRECT QUOTE, how can you possibly dispute that?


Are you illiterate? The direct quote says they used the names or policy positions. That doesn't mean "bias," that means "names or policy positions." It doesn't say "names Obama doesn't like" or "policy positions held by Republicans," it says "names or policy positions."
 
2013-06-07 11:41:11 PM

Mrtraveler01: The_Six_Fingered_Man: ITT: People who say that 501(c)(4) groups cannot be political, yet ignore that there are PACs with that designation.

They can be political, but there is a limit to how political they can get.


No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in. Which is defined by the IRS as advocating for or against a political candidate. They can engage in unlimited lobbying on political issues.
 
2013-06-07 11:50:41 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in.


Um you mean apart from not participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." That's not considered social welfare.
 
2013-06-07 11:52:51 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: ghare: The_Six_Fingered_Man: derpderpderpderpdeprlibslibsderpderp

Ahh, troll accounts coming out!

What an erudite rebuttal of my point.


ghare will have to rest a bit after using all his brainpower to come up with that one
 
2013-06-07 11:55:22 PM

Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in.

Um you mean apart from not participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." That's not considered social welfare.


Did you only read the first sentence? I quantified political campaign activity as just that, per the IRS. So, thanks for repeating my point, I guess?

FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.
 
2013-06-08 12:02:48 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in.

Um you mean apart from not participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." That's not considered social welfare.

Did you only read the first sentence? I quantified political campaign activity as just that, per the IRS. So, thanks for repeating my point, I guess?

FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.


So they can violate the social welfare provision then.  Um, OK.  Thanks for contradicting yourself I guess?
 
2013-06-08 12:04:37 AM

Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in.

Um you mean apart from not participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." That's not considered social welfare.

Did you only read the first sentence? I quantified political campaign activity as just that, per the IRS. So, thanks for repeating my point, I guess?

FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.

So they can violate the social welfare provision then.  Um, OK.  Thanks for contradicting yourself I guess?


Please define "social welfare." If you can, please tell the IRS, because they can't.
 
2013-06-08 12:16:22 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Fart_Machine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, there is a limit to the amount of political campaign activity they can engage in.

Um you mean apart from not participating in "political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." That's not considered social welfare.

Did you only read the first sentence? I quantified political campaign activity as just that, per the IRS. So, thanks for repeating my point, I guess?

FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.

So they can violate the social welfare provision then.  Um, OK.  Thanks for contradicting yourself I guess?

Please define "social welfare." If you can, please tell the IRS, because they can't.


Because there is no law definitining the limits of "social welfare" for these groups. If the GOP wasn't busy crying wolf, one of their many members in Congress could draft a bill to clarify these issues.
 
2013-06-08 01:30:12 AM

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


Is swallowing some kind of automatic reflex with you, or is it that you would never consider spitting under any circumstances? Just curious.
 
2013-06-08 02:11:09 AM

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

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


And that isn't the problem.  The problem was a procedure that was supposed to be political neutral overwhelmingly targeted conservative groups AND when it normally took under 90 days to approve or disapprove, in many instances it took over two years AND the information that was supposed to be confidential was leaked to groups that were politically opposite AND the IRS asked questions that were so overtly politically based that you'd have to be an idiot to think something funny wasn't going on AND not a single one of the targeted groups was denied their tax exempt status so what was the farking holdup?
 
2013-06-08 02:12:54 AM

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

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

47% of 1002 people they polled.

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


47%?  Now where have I heard that number before...

Coincidence?      http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=18133208
 
2013-06-08 02:29:44 AM

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

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

And that isn't the problem.  The problem was a procedure that was supposed to be political neutral overwhelmingly targeted conservative groups AND when it normally took under 90 days to approve or disapprove, in many instances it took over two years AND the information that was supposed to be confidential was leaked to groups that were politically opposite AND the IRS asked questions that were so overtly politically based that you'd have to be an idiot to think something funny wasn't going on AND not a single one of the targeted groups was denied their tax exempt status so what was the farking holdup?


AND by "overwhelmingly targeted" they mean 25%. AND by "many instances" they mean "some." AND by "overtly political" they mean, "please explain to us why you qualify for tax exempt status as required by the law". And as far as the hold up, if people aren't complying with their paperwork requirements, then they can't get their f*cking status, now, can they?
 
2013-06-08 02:35:14 AM

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

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

And that isn't the problem.  The problem was a procedure that was supposed to be political neutral overwhelmingly targeted conservative groups AND when it normally took under 90 days to approve or disapprove, in many instances it took over two years AND the information that was supposed to be confidential was leaked to groups that were politically opposite AND the IRS asked questions that were so overtly politically based that you'd have to be an idiot to think something funny wasn't going on AND not a single one of the targeted groups was denied their tax exempt status so what was the farking holdup?

AND by "overwhelmingly targeted" they mean 25%. AND by "many instances" they mean "some." AND by "overtly political" they mean, "please explain to us why you qualify for tax exempt status as required by the law". And as far as the hold up, if people aren't complying with their paperwork requirements, then they can't get their f*cking status, now, can they?


Wrong.  They were overwhelmingly targeted when compared to the liberal groups applying.

As for the questions.  Go here.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/weirdest-irs-questions- fo r-the-tea-party-views-donors-and-etymology/
 
2013-06-08 03:42:13 AM
Two Internal Revenue Service agents working in the agency's Cincinnati office say higher-ups in Washington directed the targeting of conservative political groups when they applied for tax-exempt status, a contention that directly contradicts claims made by the agency since the scandal erupted last month.

But yeah, keep flogging that "no one was targeted" horse, despite it being long dead.
 
2013-06-08 03:48:51 AM

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

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

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


They didn't have to suspend activities while waiting did they?
 
2013-06-08 03:59:32 AM

Without Fail: the_dude_abides: Mrtraveler01: So none of these tea party groups got the tax-exempt status they wanted?

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

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

They didn't have to suspend activities while waiting did they?


Look up the phrase, "chilling effect".  But even if it didn't disrupt their activities, it is still wrong.  No group should be treated differently by the government because of their political beliefs.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

/note that political beliefs is not the same as activities.  Obviously if a group was promoting violence, there is something to investigate
 
2013-06-08 04:07:03 AM

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

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

THIS.

This....is not true.

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


The US tax code uses this one: "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."
 
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