Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, Cincinnati IRS  
•       •       •

1752 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jun 2013 at 4:47 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-08 04:43:41 AM  

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

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

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

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


I think you're seriously misreading it.
When 501(c)(4) groups are required to primarily engage in social welfare and are banned from advocating for political candidates, it does not mean they can do 45% political candidate support as long as they spend the remaining 55% on social welfare.
It means that in addition to social welfare work they are allowed to spend time and money on things that are neither social nor political, e.g. human resource management, office space maintainance and self promotion.
 
2013-06-08 05:22:36 AM  

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

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

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

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

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

As for the questions.  Go here.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/weirdest-irs-questions- fo r-the-tea-party-views-donors-and-etymology/


You're making me so sad. I'm just going to have to forget that this is what groups that wanted tax exempt status because they were claiming to be "non-political social welfare organizations" have had to since the history of forever, and nobody complained until now, because heaven knows the dear darling Taxed Enough Already Party can't POSSIBLY be expected to conform to the same rules and regulations as everyone else in America. Otherwise I might cry, and then I'd have to recall that conservative groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and Planned Parenthood and Aids Project Los Angeles. had to answer such embarassingly political questions back in the day, and that would make me even more sad.

Suck it up, Teahadists. This is what it means to live in America. Don't like it? There are lots of other places where you can not pay taxes and advocate for the political party in power and trample on everyone who disagrees with you. They're not as nice as America, but they do exist.
 
2013-06-08 05:34:29 AM  
Oh, if those are impossibly "weird," "chilling," or disruptive questions that reek of McCarthyism, then SOMEBODY needs to go back through their history books and look up McCarthyism. Here's your list in full, from HALF A DOZEN (!) letters sent, between 2010 and 2012 (that's two years, she said helpfully). So six letters, over a 24-month period, and the most awful, intrusive, and bizarre questions they could come up with were:

Provide a list of all issues that are important to your organization. Indicate your position regarding each issue.
""Please explain in detail the derivation of your organization's name." (in a letter to the Ohio-based 1851 Center for  Constitutional Law)
"Please explain in detail your organization's involvement with the Tea Party.""Provide details regarding your relationship with Justin Binik-Thomas." (a Cincinnati-area Tea-Party activist)
"Provide information regarding the Butler County Teen Age Republicans and your relationship.
""Submit the following information relating to your past and present directors, officers, and key employees: a) Provide a resume for each.
""The names of the donors, contributors, and grantors. ... The amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.
"The names of persons from your organization and the amount of time they spent on the event or program." (for events)
"Provide copies of the handbills you distributed at your monthly meetings.
""Fully describe your youth outreach program with the local school."
"Please provide copies of all your current web pages, including your Blog posts. Please provide copies of all of your newsletters, bulletins, flyers, newsletters or any other media or literature you have disseminated to your members or others. Please provide copies of stories and articles that have been published about you."
"Are you on Facebook or other social networking sites? If yes, provide copies of these pages."
"Provide copies of the agendas and minutes of your Board meetings and, if applicable, members ship meetings, including a description of legislative and electoral issues discussed, and whether candidates for political office were invited to address the meeting."
"Do your issue-related advocacy communications compare to the positions of candidates or slates of candidates on these issues with your positions? Provide copies of these communications. What percentage do these constitute of your issue-related advocacy communications?"
"Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for political office or political party? If so describe fully the nature of that relationship."
"Apart from your responses to the preceding, estimate the percentage of your time and what percentage of your resources you will devote to activities in the 2012 election cycle, in which you will explicitly or implicitly support or oppose a candidate, candidates or slates of candidates, for public office."

If that's the worst that the delicate sensibilities of the Taxed Enough Already Party can cope with, then they've lead a desperately sheltered life, and I feel truly very sorry for them. It's really very sad that it's more than they can bear to have to ACTUALLY EXPLAIN what it is they do, and why they're so very not a political organization. Yes, my heart truly bleeds that they should have to justify their tax-free status LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, and that the rules won't be bent for them because they're so patriotic and pure-minded.


Oh, and all these questions weren't in every letter, or in all of them. Or even all the time. They were in, according to the ABC Blog, found in roughly half a dozen IRS questionnaires sent to tea party groups from 2010 to 2012. So, some of them. Over the course of two years. That's just SO fascist, I could swoon.
 
2013-06-08 07:09:30 AM  
This is Obama's Chiquitita
 
2013-06-08 07:43:38 AM  
I liked the Muslim Broadcast Network's coverage of this better.
 
2013-06-08 07:59:14 AM  

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

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

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

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

I think you're seriously misreading it.
When 501(c)(4) groups are required to primarily engage in social welfare and are banned from advocating for political candidates, it does not mean they can do 45% political candidate support as long as they spend the remaining 55% on social welfare.
It means that in addition to social welfare work they are allowed to spend time and money on things that are neither social nor political, e.g. human resource management, office space maintainance and self promotion.


I seriously doubt I am misreading it. Considering I have represented groups of this nature before the IRS, I'd like to think I have some first hand knowledge of what I am talking about.

Primary activity as it pertains to political campaign activity is a facts and circumstances test, which makes it very difficult to put a number to.

The group I represented was political on nature in that they engaged primarily in lobbying for the passage of laws related to the stated mission. They were overtly political including advocating for, and even providing some financial support to, a slate of like minded candidates.
 
2013-06-08 08:47:12 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Primary activity as it pertains to political campaign activity is a facts and circumstances test, which makes it very difficult to put a number to.


I could have sworn that the word "primarily" is used as a qualifier of "social welfare", not of the ban on campaigning for candidates.
If you're banned from comitting murder, and required to primarily spend your work hours sweeping floors, you're not allowed to spend a third of your time slaughtering people as long as you work really hard on those floors the rest of the time.
 
2013-06-08 08:49:44 AM  

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Primary activity as it pertains to political campaign activity is a facts and circumstances test, which makes it very difficult to put a number to.

I could have sworn that the word "primarily" is used as a qualifier of "social welfare", not of the ban on campaigning for candidates.
If you're banned from comitting murder, and required to primarily spend your work hours sweeping floors, you're not allowed to spend a third of your time slaughtering people as long as you work really hard on those floors the rest of the time.


You could have sworn incorrectly.
 
2013-06-08 09:07:59 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You could have sworn incorrectly.


Often have. But saying "I play an expert on the Internet and you're wrong" is not much of an argument.
 
2013-06-08 09:24:57 AM  

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You could have sworn incorrectly.

Often have. But saying "I play an expert on the Internet and you're wrong" is not much of an argument.



Political Aspects of §501(c)(4) Social Welfare Organizations

I.     A "Social Welfare" or "Action" Organization.


A.     "Social welfare" means "the common good and general welfare" or "civic betterments and social improvements."1.     Focus of organization's purpose must be to benefit the community or society as a whole, not just the organization's members and their families or other select individuals. IRS accepted community purposes include: rehabilitation and job placement of members; and, promoting legal rights of a segment of society.2.     The primary activity of an organization cannot be to carry on a business in a manner similar to a for profit business. However, §501(c)(4) organizations can engage in a business related to an exempt purpose and earn profits from it.3.     Neither can a §501(c)(4) organization be operated primarily as "a social club for the benefit, pleasure, or recreation of its members." However, social functions for the benefit of members may be carried out if incidental.B.     An "Action Organization" is an organization which devotes a substantial part of its activities to influencing legislation by propaganda or otherwise. This includes both direct lobbying and grassroots lobbying, i.e.:1.     carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation; or2.     urging individuals to contact their legislators to propose, support, or oppose legislation.II.     Governmental Activities.
A.     Lobbying Activities. A §501(c)(4) organization may devote a substantial part of its activities for lobbying purposes.B.     Political Campaigning Activities.1.     A §501(c)(4) organization may participate in lawful political campaign activities involving the nomination or election of public officials without adversely affecting its exempt status, provided such activities are insubstantial in relation to its overall activities.a.     Campaign activity includes participation or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. A candidate is any contestant for elective office.b.     Political campaign activities relate to individual candidates, whereas lobbying activities relate to social issues and laws.c.     Participation in a campaign includes publishing or distributing statements made either by a candidate or by someone else directed at a candidate.

Also see IRS Publication 4221-NC, Page 5:
Section 501(c)(4), (5), and (6) organizations may engage in political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office.
Political campaign activities are those that influence or attempt to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to a federal, state, or local public office. In order to retain its tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4), (5) or (6), an organization must ensure that its political campaign activities do not constitute the organization's primary activity

In general, section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5) or 501(c)(6) tax-exempt organizations may engage in an unlimited amount of lobbying (i.e., attempting to influence legislation), provided that the lobbying is related to the organization's exempt purpose. An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for purposes of proposing, supporting or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.
 
2013-06-08 09:31:48 AM  

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


dude, give it up. The cadre of fark lib retards will continue to circle endlessly with the "But nobody got denied" and "its just a questionnaire" arguments until the 48 hour thread window expires.  the IRS has already apologized for wrongdoing and targeting, delays and scrutiny applied to conservative groups.  The scrutiny and delays are the issue, not any denials.

There's no reason to hold up a group's application for 3 years, or ask a group member what sort of books they read.
 
2013-06-08 09:39:30 AM  
My organization, Republicans For Republicans And No One But Republicans, was one of those targeted... Suspected unfairly by the IRS of not being a "social welfare" organization.

Can you believe the gall of those guys?
 
2013-06-08 09:54:40 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You could have sworn incorrectly.

Often have. But saying "I play an expert on the Internet and you're wrong" is not much of an argument.

Political Aspects of §501(c)(4) Social Welfare Organizations...


That's more like it, although the parts you bolded about lobbying activity are irrelevant to what were talking about.
As for campaigning for candidates, I see I was wrong about it being completely banned, but also that you're wrong, when you claim they can campaign as much as they want as long as it's not their primary activity. More than that, it actually has to be insubstantial in comparison with their other activities. So they can't do e.g. 45% campaigning and 55% social welfare.
 
2013-06-08 09:59:33 AM  

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You could have sworn incorrectly.

Often have. But saying "I play an expert on the Internet and you're wrong" is not much of an argument.

Political Aspects of §501(c)(4) Social Welfare Organizations...

That's more like it, although the parts you bolded about lobbying activity are irrelevant to what were talking about.
As for campaigning for candidates, I see I was wrong about it being completely banned, but also that you're wrong, when you claim they can campaign as much as they want as long as it's not their primary activity. More than that, it actually has to be insubstantial in comparison with their other activities. So they can't do e.g. 45% campaigning and 55% social welfare.


I dont believe I ever said that they can campaign as much as they want. I believe i said that they can engage in unlimited lobbying pursuant to their stated mission and that they can campaign for candidates so long as it does not constitute a substantial portion of activity.
 
2013-06-08 10:01:54 AM  

o5iiawah: the_dude_abides: these conservative groups had their applications in limbo for years at a time for no good reason. you think it's ok just because some were eventually approved?

dude, give it up. The cadre of fark lib retards will continue to circle endlessly with the "But nobody got denied" and "its just a questionnaire" arguments until the 48 hour thread window expires.  the IRS has already apologized for wrongdoing and targeting, delays and scrutiny applied to conservative groups.  The scrutiny and delays are the issue, not any denials.

There's no reason to hold up a group's application for 3 years, or ask a group member what sort of books they read.


Was it a scandal when the NAACP were investigated by the IRS for almost two years?
Honest question, I wasn't paying much attention to US domestic politics at the time.
 
2013-06-08 10:05:36 AM  

Dansker: o5iiawah: the_dude_abides: these conservative groups had their applications in limbo for years at a time for no good reason. you think it's ok just because some were eventually approved?

dude, give it up. The cadre of fark lib retards will continue to circle endlessly with the "But nobody got denied" and "its just a questionnaire" arguments until the 48 hour thread window expires.  the IRS has already apologized for wrongdoing and targeting, delays and scrutiny applied to conservative groups.  The scrutiny and delays are the issue, not any denials.

There's no reason to hold up a group's application for 3 years, or ask a group member what sort of books they read.

Was it a scandal when the NAACP were investigated by the IRS for almost two years?
Honest question, I wasn't paying much attention to US domestic politics at the time.


To be honest, I didn't even know about it until this IRS scandal popped up.

So no...no it wasn't. But IOKIYR
 
2013-06-08 10:15:57 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker:
As for campaigning for candidates, I see I was wrong about it being completely banned, but also that you're wrong, when you claim they can campaign as much as they want as long as it's not their primary activity. More than that, it actually has to be insubstantial in comparison with their other activities. So they can't do e.g. 45% campaigning and 55% social welfare.

I dont believe I ever said that they can campaign as much as they want. I believe i said that they can engage in unlimited lobbying pursuant to their stated mission and that they can campaign for candidates so long as it does not constitute a substantial portion of activity.


I added "as much as they want" in paraphrasing, but that doesn't change the substance of what you said:
The_Six_Fingered_Man:
FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.

"Not primary" does not necessarily equal "insubstantial"
 
2013-06-08 10:18:54 AM  

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker:
As for campaigning for candidates, I see I was wrong about it being completely banned, but also that you're wrong, when you claim they can campaign as much as they want as long as it's not their primary activity. More than that, it actually has to be insubstantial in comparison with their other activities. So they can't do e.g. 45% campaigning and 55% social welfare.

I dont believe I ever said that they can campaign as much as they want. I believe i said that they can engage in unlimited lobbying pursuant to their stated mission and that they can campaign for candidates so long as it does not constitute a substantial portion of activity.

I added "as much as they want" in paraphrasing, but that doesn't change the substance of what you said:The_Six_Fingered_Man:
FYI: they can advocate for a particular candidate so long as it does not constitute their primary activity.
"Not primary" does not necessarily equal "insubstantial"


Which i backed up with the relevant section of Pub 4221-NC.

In order to retain its tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4), (5) or (6), an organization must ensure that its political campaign activities do not constitute the organization's primary activity
 
2013-06-08 10:27:01 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: "Not primary" does not necessarily equal "insubstantial"

Which i backed up with the relevant section of Pub 4221-NC.


They obviously supplement each other, but their wordings are incongruent and leaves room for misinterpretation. So, another honest question: Which one carries most legal weight, IRS publications or the Tax Code?
 
2013-06-08 10:58:01 AM  

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: "Not primary" does not necessarily equal "insubstantial"

Which i backed up with the relevant section of Pub 4221-NC.

They obviously supplement each other, but their wordings are incongruent and leaves room for misinterpretation. So, another honest question: Which one carries most legal weight, IRS publications or the Tax Code?


IRS Publications are the interpretation of the tax code is plain English as interpreted by the code as well as relevant tax court cases and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Treasury. Publications are taxpayer guidance of the raw code.
 
2013-06-08 11:10:18 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: "Not primary" does not necessarily equal "insubstantial"

Which i backed up with the relevant section of Pub 4221-NC.

They obviously supplement each other, but their wordings are incongruent and leaves room for misinterpretation. So, another honest question: Which one carries most legal weight, IRS publications or the Tax Code?

IRS Publications are the interpretation of the tax code is plain English as interpreted by the code as well as relevant tax court cases and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Treasury. Publications are taxpayer guidance of the raw code.


So when the IRS publication says "not their primary activity" it doesn't negate the law's requirement of "insubstantial activity", right?
 
2013-06-08 11:13:54 AM  

Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dansker: "Not primary" does not necessarily equal "insubstantial"

Which i backed up with the relevant section of Pub 4221-NC.

They obviously supplement each other, but their wordings are incongruent and leaves room for misinterpretation. So, another honest question: Which one carries most legal weight, IRS publications or the Tax Code?

IRS Publications are the interpretation of the tax code is plain English as interpreted by the code as well as relevant tax court cases and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Treasury. Publications are taxpayer guidance of the raw code.

So when the IRS publication says "not their primary activity" it doesn't negate the law's requirement of "insubstantial activity", right?


Correct.
 
2013-06-08 11:15:30 AM  

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

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

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

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

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

As for the questions.  Go here.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/weirdest-irs-questions- fo r-the-tea-party-views-donors-and-etymology/


25 to 33% isn't overwhelmingly targeted and considering the worst thing that happened was that they got a questionnaire while still being allowed to continually operate this "scandal" is a real yawner.
 
2013-06-08 11:17:23 AM  

Dansker: o5iiawah: the_dude_abides: these conservative groups had their applications in limbo for years at a time for no good reason. you think it's ok just because some were eventually approved?

dude, give it up. The cadre of fark lib retards will continue to circle endlessly with the "But nobody got denied" and "its just a questionnaire" arguments until the 48 hour thread window expires.  the IRS has already apologized for wrongdoing and targeting, delays and scrutiny applied to conservative groups.  The scrutiny and delays are the issue, not any denials.

There's no reason to hold up a group's application for 3 years, or ask a group member what sort of books they read.

Was it a scandal when the NAACP were investigated by the IRS for almost two years?
Honest question, I wasn't paying much attention to US domestic politics at the time.


No but you're responding to a couple of third rate trolls so there's that.
 
2013-06-08 12:00:56 PM  

Fart_Machine:
No but you're responding to a couple of third rate trolls so there's that.


Everybody needs a hobby. Don't judge me.
 
2013-06-08 12:36:04 PM  

Dansker: Was it a scandal when the NAACP were investigated by the IRS for almost two years?
Honest question, I wasn't paying much attention to US domestic politics at the time.


what does any alleged targeting of the NAACP have anything to do with this incident?

If Obama sent crateloads of automatic weapons over to juntas and rebel groups all over the world would it be peachy fine and Hunky dory because Reagan did it too?

The "but Bush.." arguments are getting more than tired and a sign that there isn't much load left for you morons to lick up.
 
2013-06-08 12:38:37 PM  

o5iiawah: Dansker: Was it a scandal when the NAACP were investigated by the IRS for almost two years?
Honest question, I wasn't paying much attention to US domestic politics at the time.

what does any alleged targeting of the NAACP have anything to do with this incident?

If Obama sent crateloads of automatic weapons over to juntas and rebel groups all over the world would it be peachy fine and Hunky dory because Reagan did it too?

The "but Bush.." arguments are getting more than tired and a sign that there isn't much load left for you morons to lick up.


I think the argument they're trying to make is that when similar stuff happened in the past, the folks on the right were silent about it. It was only after a Democrat became president that it suddenly became a huge scandal.

They're just pointing out the hypocrisy from the right is all.
 
2013-06-08 12:56:55 PM  

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

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

THIS.


From my understanding is there are different "classes" of tax-exempt.  A 501(c)(3) group can't spend money on political activities, but a 501(c)(4) can.  However, the 501(c)(4) group's primary purpose must be social welfare.  I'm about 99% sure these Tea Party groups' primary purpose aren't social welfare.
 
2013-06-08 01:05:59 PM  

o5iiawah: what does any alleged targeting of the NAACP have anything to do with this incident?


Your using the word "alleged" in that situation says volumes.
 
2013-06-08 01:14:19 PM  
Remove the word "is" from my previous post.
 
2013-06-08 02:23:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: They're just pointing out the hypocrisy from the right is all.


Oh, well as long as hypocrisy is the only thing people can stand on, that's fine.
 
2013-06-08 02:27:07 PM  

Fart_Machine: Your using the word "alleged" in that situation says volumes.


So the IRS is a problem in both republican and democratic administrations.  Sounds like you're against the power and autonomy given to the IRS.
Thanks for agreeing.
 
2013-06-08 02:28:07 PM  

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


The silly thing in all of this is how the IRS overrides the statutory language "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare" and go with 'ok just 50%+ of the time'.  The former is a relatively-simple determination; the latter presents a mess.
 
2013-06-08 02:47:18 PM  

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Your using the word "alleged" in that situation says volumes.

So the IRS is a problem in both republican and democratic administrations.  Sounds like you're against the power and autonomy given to the IRS.
Thanks for agreeing.


So you don't need to feel like a victim anymore. That should be refreshing.
 
2013-06-08 04:08:35 PM  
Hm, after I posted that he left. How sad that makes me....
 
2013-06-08 04:49:47 PM  
Let's repeat the farking simple truth.

The two IRS agents who are the center of this controversy have already stated they were ORDERED TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS by higher ups in Washington.

So why are you still arguing that no one was targeted?  The undeniable fact is they were targeted.  We have it on record and your continued denial of it is why you are a moron.
 
2013-06-08 04:56:50 PM  

o5iiawah: Dansker: Was it a scandal when the NAACP were investigated by the IRS for almost two years?
Honest question, I wasn't paying much attention to US domestic politics at the time.

what does any alleged targeting of the NAACP have anything to do with this incident?

If Obama sent crateloads of automatic weapons over to juntas and rebel groups all over the world would it be peachy fine and Hunky dory because Reagan did it too?

The "but Bush.." arguments are getting more than tired and a sign that there isn't much load left for you morons to lick up.


Wow. So much for honest inquiry. I'm beginning to see how curiosity killed that cat.
 
2013-06-08 05:24:32 PM  

OgreMagi: Let's repeat the farking simple truth.

The two IRS agents who are the center of this controversy have already stated they were ORDERED TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS by higher ups in Washington.

So why are you still arguing that no one was targeted?  The undeniable fact is they were targeted.  We have it on record and your continued denial of it is why you are a moron.


Well if the 700 Club crack news team says so then why should I bother with the in-depth investigation provided by the IG report.
 
2013-06-08 05:34:02 PM  

Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: Let's repeat the farking simple truth.

The two IRS agents who are the center of this controversy have already stated they were ORDERED TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS by higher ups in Washington.

So why are you still arguing that no one was targeted?  The undeniable fact is they were targeted.  We have it on record and your continued denial of it is why you are a moron.

Well if the 700 Club crack news team says so then why should I bother with the in-depth investigation provided by the IG report.


The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee provided partial transcripts of interviews with the agents which revealed this information.

Yet you still sit there and pretend that was made up?
 
2013-06-08 05:47:47 PM  

OgreMagi: Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: Let's repeat the farking simple truth.

The two IRS agents who are the center of this controversy have already stated they were ORDERED TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS by higher ups in Washington.

So why are you still arguing that no one was targeted?  The undeniable fact is they were targeted.  We have it on record and your continued denial of it is why you are a moron.

Well if the 700 Club crack news team says so then why should I bother with the in-depth investigation provided by the IG report.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee provided partial transcripts of interviews with the agents which revealed this information.

Yet you still sit there and pretend that was made up?


They must have been really bad at it since only 1/4 were conservative groups and 1100 religious organizations were left alone for actively campaigning against Obama.
 
2013-06-08 07:53:08 PM  

Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: Let's repeat the farking simple truth.

The two IRS agents who are the center of this controversy have already stated they were ORDERED TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS by higher ups in Washington.

So why are you still arguing that no one was targeted?  The undeniable fact is they were targeted.  We have it on record and your continued denial of it is why you are a moron.

Well if the 700 Club crack news team says so then why should I bother with the in-depth investigation provided by the IG report.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee provided partial transcripts of interviews with the agents which revealed this information.

Yet you still sit there and pretend that was made up?

They must have been really bad at it since only 1/4 were conservative groups and 1100 religious organizations were left alone for actively campaigning against Obama.


So even when presented with undeniable proof that certain groups were targeted for their political leaning, you are still going to deny it happened?  Your mother must have dropped you on your head a lot when you were a baby, because that's the only explanation.  I'm done with you.  Arguing with the brain damaged is a waste of my time.
 
2013-06-08 08:19:55 PM  

OgreMagi: Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: Let's repeat the farking simple truth.

The two IRS agents who are the center of this controversy have already stated they were ORDERED TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE GROUPS by higher ups in Washington.

So why are you still arguing that no one was targeted?  The undeniable fact is they were targeted.  We have it on record and your continued denial of it is why you are a moron.

Well if the 700 Club crack news team says so then why should I bother with the in-depth investigation provided by the IG report.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee provided partial transcripts of interviews with the agents which revealed this information.

Yet you still sit there and pretend that was made up?

They must have been really bad at it since only 1/4 were conservative groups and 1100 religious organizations were left alone for actively campaigning against Obama.

So even when presented with undeniable proof that certain groups were targeted for their political leaning, you are still going to deny it happened?  Your mother must have dropped you on your head a lot when you were a baby, because that's the only explanation.  I'm done with you.  Arguing with the brain damaged is a waste of my time.


Yup best to insult me than read the actual IG report. Say megadittos to Rush for me you poor victim.
 
2013-06-08 08:39:20 PM  

Fart_Machine: Yup best to insult me than read the actual IG report. Say megadittos to Rush for me you poor victim.


Fart_Machine is desperately trying to out-stupid Zeppelininthesky

in this thread there are direct quotes from the president of the united states AND the inspector general that destroy your idiotic claims... you're just embarrassing yourself at this point
 
2013-06-08 09:10:41 PM  

the_dude_abides: Fart_Machine: Yup best to insult me than read the actual IG report. Say megadittos to Rush for me you poor victim.

Fart_Machine is desperately trying to out-stupid Zeppelininthesky

in this thread there are direct quotes from the president of the united states AND the inspector general that destroy your idiotic claims... you're just embarrassing yourself at this point


Don't bother.  I already pointed out that Obama has disavowed what happened.  All he does is ignore all the facts, then accuse me of being a Rush fan and tea party member.  I can't stand Rush and think the Tea Party is nothing but a bunch of useful idiots for the fundies.  I am constantly astounded by how much people are willing to defend the president or ignore problems because they negatively affected "the other party".
 
2013-06-08 09:38:08 PM  

OgreMagi: All he does is ignore all the facts


I presented you with facts and linked the actual IG report above.  Still you want to play the victim.  You're truly pathetic.
 
2013-06-08 10:49:18 PM  

Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: All he does is ignore all the facts

I presented you with facts and linked the actual IG report above.  Still you want to play the victim.  You're truly pathetic.


They just ignore facts.
 
Displayed 46 of 296 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | 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