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.

(Talking Points Memo)   You know how the IRS targeted conservative non-profit groups using exclusively conservative terms? It turns out the IRS was also targeting liberal non-profit groups using exclusively liberal terms   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 242
    More: Followup, IRS, Danny Werfel  
•       •       •

1782 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2013 at 7:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-24 05:28:15 PM
What does Darrell Issa know about this and when did he find out?
 
2013-06-24 05:30:50 PM
and, that makes it OK?
 
2013-06-24 05:41:44 PM

serial_crusher: and, that makes it OK?


no, that just makes it not political.
 
2013-06-24 05:52:03 PM

serial_crusher: and, that makes it OK?


Using terms associated with political groups/parties/movements, in order to identify groups that are more likely to be engaged in political activities that are inconsistent with the requirements for 501(c) organizations?  Well, yeah, that seems OK to me.
 
2013-06-24 05:58:50 PM

serial_crusher: and, that makes it OK?


Yes. If your group is political it isn't a non profit charity.
 
2013-06-24 06:14:27 PM
I still think there needs to be an audit of every group claiming 501C status.
 
2013-06-24 06:30:22 PM

Aarontology: I still think there needs to be an audit of every group claiming 501C status.


This.

Wow the tax code needs to be revamped
 
2013-06-24 06:31:08 PM
So the IRS targeted...groups. Dastardly.
 
2013-06-24 06:34:03 PM

serial_crusher: and, that makes it OK?


It shows that "patriots" were not singled out by the White House.  This was obvious to everyone with a functioning frontal lobe (ie, non-teabaggers)

what_now: serial_crusher: and, that makes it OK?

Yes. If your group is political it isn't a non profit charity.


And THIS

ALL clearly political organizations should be taxed.  Period.
 
2013-06-24 06:34:07 PM

serial_crusher: and, that makes it OK?


Yes. As a matter of fact, it does.
 
2013-06-24 06:44:01 PM
To be fair those other groups are not comprised of rascal scooter riding octogenarians sporting misspelled signs so your argument is invalid
 
2013-06-24 06:49:24 PM

serial_crusher: and, that makes it OK?


Um. Yes, it does. In what way is it not ok if this is true?
 
2013-06-24 06:49:56 PM
So, are the liberals going to scream and whine and cry about how they are being persecuted?  Personally, I doubt it.

And are the Republicans going to learn anything from that example of how civilized adults act?  I doubt that even more.
 
2013-06-24 07:03:15 PM
I'm sure Fox news will be leading with this story tonight.
 
2013-06-24 07:07:37 PM
I am no more scandalized by this instance of the IRS doing their job than I was last time.
 
2013-06-24 07:13:22 PM
*stands in the street looking dejected, unsure what to do with torch and picthfork*
 
2013-06-24 07:20:37 PM

gilgigamesh: *stands in the street looking dejected, unsure what to do with torch and picthfork*


Immigration, dear boy. There's always immigration.
 
2013-06-24 07:20:50 PM
You mean the manufactured scandal was manufactured?

No...............
 
2013-06-24 07:27:45 PM
I don't understand what's going on here. Fox News has been covering this story so closely, and yet, for some reason, their coverage of this is only a minor, non-bolded link on their main page that somehow, for some reason, fails to mention anything about the actual terms that were being used. It's actually a mystery, reading that, as to what additional screening terms the IRS was using at all. It's strange, I tell you. A strange thing. I'll have to study this further, see if I can glean some sense from it.
 
2013-06-24 07:28:31 PM

justtray: You mean the manufactured scandal was manufactured?

No...............


Next thing you know, the MSM will be claiming that 0bama didn't personally demand the execution of Christopher Stevens.
 
2013-06-24 07:49:05 PM

serial_crusher: and, that makes it OK?


You don't come here for the hunting, do you?
 
2013-06-24 07:55:07 PM
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-24 07:55:25 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: So the IRS targeted...groups. Dastardly.


Yup.
 
2013-06-24 07:55:48 PM

unlikely: I am no more scandalized by this instance of the IRS doing their job than I was last time.


Except considering that sheer number of these groups that still were approved for 501(c)4 status, I'd say the IRS is not doing their job. They're just not being partisan about not doing their job. Which is, really, probably the most we could ever hope for.
 
2013-06-24 07:58:05 PM
Weren't we saying the same thing FROM DAY ONE?!??!?!!?

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick.
 
2013-06-24 07:58:39 PM
The IRS was doing their job. Interesting. I bet all those idiots who were saying that the IRS only targeted Conservative groups by name will come to this thread and apologize.

Maybe not...
 
2013-06-24 07:59:20 PM

Aarontology: I still think there needs to be an audit of every group claiming 501C status.


Agreed. There also needs to be a change of the law to make it more clear what political means.
 
2013-06-24 08:01:22 PM
www.gifmagic.com
darrell issa's head assplodes
 
2013-06-24 08:02:08 PM
I still don't like using a keyword list for screening non-profit groups, but this is a lot less blatant than we were originally led to believe.
 
2013-06-24 08:02:56 PM

Zeppelininthesky: The IRS was doing their job. Interesting. I bet all those idiots who were saying that the IRS only targeted Conservative groups by name will come to this thread and apologize.

Maybe not...


No, they already have new talking points. Soon, someone will come in claiming that it wasn't the targeting but the fact that conservative groups took longer to get their approval.

When you can't kick worth a damn, move the goalposts.
 
2013-06-24 08:03:05 PM

MFAWG: Dusk-You-n-Me: So the IRS targeted...groups. Dastardly.

Yup.


Yes...it's all pretty unexciting, unless you belong to a group whose very raison d'être is whining about perceived injustices directed at them specifically because of how incredibly patriotically American they are.
 
2013-06-24 08:03:31 PM
As they should.... Political groups should not have tax exempt status. Unfortunately the teatards will still only feel persecuted.
 
2013-06-24 08:03:49 PM
Wow.  It didn't take the newly appointed director long to find a new list.  Maybe the IRS Inspector General didn't look in the White House last week for the new list when he made his report.
 
2013-06-24 08:05:08 PM
I'm still totally lost as why when you are trying to verify that a group is not political it is bad to give extra scrutiny to groups with words in their names that suggest political activity. You know, like "party".
 
2013-06-24 08:06:04 PM

serial_crusher: and, that makes it OK?


Yeah, with very few exceptions, partisan political prganizations should not be treated as social welfare organization - even when they're on my "team".
 
2013-06-24 08:06:42 PM

tbeatty: Wow.  It didn't take the newly appointed director long to find a new list.  Maybe the IRS Inspector General didn't look in the White House last week for the new list when he made his report.


I think he looked behind the couch. Always works for me.
 
2013-06-24 08:07:54 PM

Into the blue again: As they should.... Political groups should not have tax exempt status. Unfortunately the teatards will still only feel persecuted.


It was not really that they wanted to dodge taxes, but they needed to keep their donors secret. Dodging taxes was just a bonus.
 
2013-06-24 08:08:27 PM

serial_crusher: and, that makes it OK?


No it makes it a scandal worse than watergate ...because....(help me out here).
 
2013-06-24 08:10:12 PM
Have no fear.  Republicans have already started moving the goalposts in order to keep this a "scandal."
 
2013-06-24 08:10:19 PM
This reminds me of the time when everyone was upset that 90% of the GM dealerships that closed under the GM bankruptcy were owned by Republican donors, but after months of outrage, as it turned out, 90% of the ones that stayed open were also owned by Republican donors, which made sense because 90% of all dealerships were owned by Republican donors.
 
2013-06-24 08:10:38 PM

El_Perro: Using terms associated with political groups/parties/movements, in order to identify groups that are more likely to be engaged in political activities that are inconsistent with the requirements for 501(c) organizations? Well, yeah, that seems OK to me.


This.
 
2013-06-24 08:13:47 PM
Yet only ONE group whined, cried and screamed like little biatches.

The TOUGH GUY party...
 
2013-06-24 08:17:18 PM
You can still have a problem with the process (profiling) but this proves that it wasn't politically motivated.
 
2013-06-24 08:18:24 PM
THIS IS NOW AN OUTRAGE!

/or not an outrage at all, depending
 
2013-06-24 08:18:52 PM

Churchy LaFemme: El_Perro: Using terms associated with political groups/parties/movements, in order to identify groups that are more likely to be engaged in political activities that are inconsistent with the requirements for 501(c) organizations? Well, yeah, that seems OK to me.

This.


Yep. If your group name is TEA Party you are more likely to not be a social welfare group. If your group name is Feed the Children, then you are most likely a social welfare group.
 
2013-06-24 08:18:59 PM

serial_crusher: and, that makes it OK?


actually... yes
 
2013-06-24 08:19:24 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Into the blue again: As they should.... Political groups should not have tax exempt status. Unfortunately the teatards will still only feel persecuted.

It was not really that they wanted to dodge taxes, but they needed to keep their donors secret. Dodging taxes was just a bonus.


That sounds about right.
 
2013-06-24 08:20:49 PM

serial_crusher: and, that makes it OK?


Honestly, yes.

What pushes it over the line was pretty much solely the fact that it was partisan, the practice of targeting groups with blatantly partisan names applying for exemptions that require non-exclusivity or staying out of politics isn't actually a problem, it's just basic common sense.

If they're doing it to everybody, hell, write that shiat into the official screening policies of the IRS.

//Though, again, there were explicit directives to target the president's political opponents here.  That's what makes it bad, in the same way that pulling over people speeding is a good thing, but pulling over mostly or entirely black people speeding is a bad thing.
 
2013-06-24 08:23:07 PM

Aldon: You can still have a problem with the process (profiling) but this proves that it wasn't politically motivated.


It does?
Police list of people to stop: Orange people
Other Police list of people to stop: Purple people
Police still only stopped Orange people, but the existence of the Purple list makes it okay?
 
2013-06-24 08:23:46 PM
Once again this is my shocked face at the thought of them dealing with an explosion of 501c4s by employing some shortcuts.
 
Displayed 50 of 242 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report