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.

(Washington Post)   Clearly, there is no need for the IRS to investigate conservative "non-profits"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 164
    More: Obvious, IRS, nonprofits, Americans for Job Security, Center for Responsive Politics, political committee, blood donors  
•       •       •

5477 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Nov 2013 at 6:57 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-04 05:22:02 PM
yeah, they are pure as the driven snow.  they are practically perfect in every way.
 
2013-11-04 05:56:06 PM
These are not the 'roids you're looking for...
 
2013-11-04 06:16:10 PM

ManateeGag: yeah, they are pure as the driven snow.  they are practically perfect in every way.


cdn2.dolimg.com
Does Mary Poppins have to cut a biatch?
 
2013-11-04 06:59:59 PM
It wouldn't be a problem if they could funnel the money however they wish without paying socialst taxes.

Too much regulation is the problem here.
 
2013-11-04 07:07:16 PM
Does anyone really think the people buying elections have enough capacity for shame inside of them to stop doing it just because someone might find out?

Stop worrying about worthless disclosure laws and pass a "Money isn't Speech" amendment if you want to save this country from corporatocracy.
 
2013-11-04 07:08:52 PM
But with names like "Americans for Jobs (for billionaires)", and "United Citizens for the Advancement of Freedom (for billionaires)", how could they possibly not have the working class interests at heart?
 
2013-11-04 07:11:45 PM
well, just because a non-profit has the word Conservative in its title shouldn't be enough to red flag that particular non-profit, listen, Political Conservatives are more than happy to disclose the origin of their funding, all you have to do is ask, they're transparent and have NOTHING to hide, they aren't like Dems or LIbs .... (clicks/reads article)... LOL!

/god i hate modern Conservatives
//not hate as in hate hate, more of a dislike with more dis
///dislikers gonna dislike!
 
2013-11-04 07:11:50 PM
We need a TR for our generation. Someone needs to put an end to this sh*t because the courts don't seem willing to.
 
2013-11-04 07:13:09 PM

DarwiOdrade: ManateeGag: yeah, they are pure as the driven snow.  they are practically perfect in every way.

[cdn2.dolimg.com image 677x456]
Does Mary Poppins have to cut a biatch?


Heh.
 
2013-11-04 07:13:10 PM

EJ25T: But with names like "Americans for Jobs (for billionaires)", and "United Citizens for the Advancement of Freedom (for billionaires)", how could they possibly not have the working class interests at heart?


How about "Special Operations for America"?
 
2013-11-04 07:14:54 PM
data1.whicdn.com
 
2013-11-04 07:14:54 PM
i651.photobucket.com

// Taxes are for brown poor people, not Americans.
// Americans are goodfolks whose income comes from investments
// americans (little a) work for Americans
 
2013-11-04 07:15:46 PM
If only such fines came with prohibition of the participants from engaging in this line of business for a few years. A few million of "wrist slap" works out to "our next funding solicitation."

It's the same problem with penis pills and whatnot, no matter how large the fine there's still a profit and a new product next year.
 
2013-11-04 07:16:11 PM

dookdookdook: Does anyone really think the people buying elections have enough capacity for shame inside of them to stop doing it just because someone might find out?

Stop worrying about worthless disclosure laws and pass a "Money isn't Speech" amendment if you want to save this country from corporatocracy.


But it is speech. Because it can buy a microphone.

"That which is for me through the medium of money - that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) - that am I myself, the possessor of the money. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. Money's properties are my - the possessor's - properties and essential powers. Thus, what I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness - its deterrent power - is nullified by money. I, according to my individual characteristics, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and hence its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good. Money, besides, saves me the trouble of being dishonest: I am therefore presumed honest. I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? Besides, he can buy clever people for himself, and is he who has [In the manuscript: 'is'. - Ed.] power over the clever not more clever than the clever? Do not I, who thanks to money am capable of all that the human heart longs for, possess all human capacities? Does not my money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their contrary?" - Karl Marx
 
2013-11-04 07:18:08 PM

EJ25T: But with names like "Americans for Jobs (for billionaires)", and "United Citizens for the Advancement of Freedom (for billionaires)", how could they possibly not have the working class interests at heart?


Senior Citizens Rejecting Enervated Worker Unions and Integrating Growth Opportunities Toward Major Investments in New Economies?
 
2013-11-04 07:18:25 PM
The best government money can buy!
 
2013-11-04 07:20:31 PM
I suppose Teddy Roosevelt was based on this Australian:

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-11-04 07:24:08 PM

NewportBarGuy: We need a TR for our generation. Someone needs to put an end to this sh*t because the courts don't seem willing to.


A home schooled imperialist who love war, supports protectionism and the gold standard?

I'm sure we can find some. Probably watching Glenn Beck.
 
2013-11-04 07:26:57 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-04 07:29:33 PM

sendtodave: dookdookdook: Does anyone really think the people buying elections have enough capacity for shame inside of them to stop doing it just because someone might find out?

Stop worrying about worthless disclosure laws and pass a "Money isn't Speech" amendment if you want to save this country from corporatocracy.

But it is speech. Because it can buy a microphone.


www.thequotefactory.com
 
2013-11-04 07:31:55 PM
Surely the right to free speech should include the right to anonymous free speech as well.
 
2013-11-04 07:36:50 PM

dookdookdook: pass a "Money isn't Speech" amendment


Non-profits are people too, my friend.
 
2013-11-04 07:40:13 PM
i47.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-04 07:43:18 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Surely the right to free speech should include the right to anonymous free speech as well.


If what you have to say is so damn important, don't be a coward. Stand up in front of a crowd and say it loud and proud.

/also, money isn't speech, despite what the Supreme Court said
//its money
 
2013-11-04 07:45:13 PM
Hey hippies...OF COURSE they don't want you to know that all that money you spent at Whole Foods is going to finance conservative PAC.  duh.
 
2013-11-04 07:45:25 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Surely the right to free speech should include the right to anonymous free speech unregulated commerce as well.


Let's be farking clear what we're farking talking about here. Spending is not speech. Spending is commerce.
 
2013-11-04 07:47:15 PM
Stupid liberals. Everyone knows that answering a non-binding questionaire about sources for large sums of cash is exactly equivalent to rounding up jews for the gas chambers. We're just trying to nip this in the bud right now!
 
2013-11-04 07:48:59 PM

grumpfuff: AverageAmericanGuy: Surely the right to free speech should include the right to anonymous free speech as well.

If what you have to say is so damn important, don't be a coward. Stand up in front of a crowd and say it loud and proud.



But then all the little people will boycott my business and that's wrong and I shouldn't have to take the consequences of my speech!
 
2013-11-04 07:50:25 PM
I thought the conservative ethos was that all entities needed to make a profit.
 
2013-11-04 07:53:05 PM

wildcardjack: It's the same problem with penis pills and whatnot, no matter how large the fine there's still a profit and a new product next year.


You've been burned a couple times, eh?
 
2013-11-04 07:58:04 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Surely the right to free speech should include the right to anonymous free speech as well.


Typically, legal anonymity is granted to entities that are vulnerable to reprisal from a more powerful entity (whistle blowers protected from corporate/government entities they're informing on, safe haven seeking parents protected from abusive spouses, rape victims protected from accused rapists and so forth). It's not something that's meant to allow large powerful corporate entities to remain hidden while influencing the political landscape.
 
2013-11-04 08:01:16 PM
Biggest cali spenders:

3.bp.blogspot.com

Clearly, the issue is with conservative groups. Keep making love to that chicken, everyone.
 
2013-11-04 08:07:00 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Surely the right to free speech should include the right to anonymous free speech as well.


We no longer have the right to travel anonymously, so why should we be allowed to do anything else anonymously?
 
2013-11-04 08:07:23 PM

super_grass: Biggest cali spenders:



Clearly, the issue is with conservative groups. Keep making love to that chicken, everyone.


What, are you f*cking stupid?

/ answer: yes.
 
2013-11-04 08:07:54 PM

MFAWG: AverageAmericanGuy: Surely the right to free speech should include the right to anonymous free speech as well.

We no longer have the right to travel anonymously, so why should we be allowed to do anything else anonymously?


Is this some kind of reverse slippery slope?
 
2013-11-04 08:09:01 PM

El Morro: super_grass: Biggest cali spenders:

Clearly, the issue is with conservative groups. Keep making love to that chicken, everyone.

What, are you f*cking stupid?

/ answer: yes.


Hit a nerve, huh? I guess there's some truth behind it then.

/dumb fark
 
2013-11-04 08:10:06 PM

MFAWG: AverageAmericanGuy: Surely the right to free speech should include the right to anonymous free speech as well.

We no longer have the right to travel anonymously, so why should we be allowed to do anything else anonymously?


Don't assume I'm too happy about that either.
 
2013-11-04 08:10:12 PM

super_grass: Biggest cali spenders:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 823x937]

Clearly, the issue is with conservative groups. Keep making love to that chicken, everyone.


How does that look if you only include post-Citizens United money?
 
2013-11-04 08:10:52 PM

super_grass: Biggest cali spenders:



Clearly, the issue is with conservative groups. Keep making love to that chicken, everyone.


And did any of those groups lie on their filings to make it seem like they were tax-exempt groups without political agendas, or did they own up and pay the proper taxes?

Oh shiat! Looks like we've got some nuance up in this place. It's almost like your "BOF SIDES!!" argument is the same disingenuous bullshiat you are always trying to pass off, you utter cock.
 
2013-11-04 08:11:08 PM

El Morro: super_grass: Biggest cali spenders:

Clearly, the issue is with conservative groups. Keep making love to that chicken, everyone.

What, are you f*cking stupid?

/ answer: yes.


Because California politics are directly analogous to every other state, and therefore are a valid comparison for national PAC expenditures.

/chart or graph = you win the prize!
 
2013-11-04 08:12:29 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: AverageAmericanGuy: Surely the right to free speech should include the right to anonymous free speech unregulated commerce as well.

Let's be farking clear what we're farking talking about here. Spending is not speech. Spending is commerce.


Problem is when that commerce is the trade of ideas and...speech.
 
2013-11-04 08:13:48 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: And did any of those groups lie on their filings to make it seem like they were tax-exempt groups without political agendas


501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to be political. That's why they exist and are not just 501(c)(3) organizations.
 
2013-11-04 08:14:40 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: super_grass: Biggest cali spenders:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 823x937]

Clearly, the issue is with conservative groups. Keep making love to that chicken, everyone.

How does that look if you only include post-Citizens United money?


Why? It was all the way back in '10 and affected nonprofits, industry groups, and unions equally. It shouldn't make things easier for one group or the other comparatively.
 
2013-11-04 08:14:41 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: MFAWG: AverageAmericanGuy: Surely the right to free speech should include the right to anonymous free speech as well.

We no longer have the right to travel anonymously, so why should we be allowed to do anything else anonymously?

Don't assume I'm too happy about that either.


Stupid Liebruls kept pointing that shiat out in 2002 and 3, and got called every name in the book.

But you were different, right?
 
2013-11-04 08:17:04 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: super_grass: Biggest cali spenders:

Clearly, the issue is with conservative groups. Keep making love to that chicken, everyone.

And did any of those groups lie on their filings to make it seem like they were tax-exempt groups without political agendas, or did they own up and pay the proper taxes?

Oh shiat! Looks like we've got some nuance up in this place. It's almost like your "BOF SIDES!!" argument is the same disingenuous bullshiat you are always trying to pass off, you utter cock.


Do your own damned research and tell me, Glenn Beck.

And I'm not making saying both sides are equally bad.  Public employees are clearly the biggest players in the california money game.
 
2013-11-04 08:17:26 PM

EJ25T: El Morro: super_grass: Biggest cali spenders:

Clearly, the issue is with conservative groups. Keep making love to that chicken, everyone.

What, are you f*cking stupid?

/ answer: yes.

Because California politics are directly analogous to every other state, and therefore are a valid comparison for national PAC expenditures.

/chart or graph = you win the prize!


You totally miss Supergrass' point, dude! He's saying that if nobody had to disclose, then our evil union thugs could buy ALL the politicians, and no one would ever know!
See how dumb us liberals are? Always working against our own interests. :D
 
2013-11-04 08:18:18 PM

sprawl15: A Dark Evil Omen: AverageAmericanGuy: Surely the right to free speech should include the right to anonymous free speech unregulated commerce as well.

Let's be farking clear what we're farking talking about here. Spending is not speech. Spending is commerce.

Problem is when that commerce is the trade of ideas and...speech.


Lets be serious here. Libs rail against this type of private spending because they perceive 'Big Money' to be a Conservative-only thing rather than a right anyone can exercise. They don't see their small political contributions in the same light because their political blinders prevent them from accepting the fundamental analog of their contribution to the contribution of large donors.
 
2013-11-04 08:18:47 PM

EJ25T: El Morro: super_grass: Biggest cali spenders:

Clearly, the issue is with conservative groups. Keep making love to that chicken, everyone.

What, are you f*cking stupid?

/ answer: yes.

Because California politics are directly analogous to every other state, and therefore are a valid comparison for national PAC expenditures.

/chart or graph = you win the prize!


Headline: "California donor disclosure case exposes how nonprofits can play in politics"

Make what you will of it.
 
2013-11-04 08:20:02 PM

MFAWG: AverageAmericanGuy: MFAWG: AverageAmericanGuy: Surely the right to free speech should include the right to anonymous free speech as well.

We no longer have the right to travel anonymously, so why should we be allowed to do anything else anonymously?

Don't assume I'm too happy about that either.

Stupid Liebruls kept pointing that shiat out in 2002 and 3, and got called every name in the book.

But you were different, right?


Different only in that I did not support the invasion of Iraq.

But I guess I never passed up an opportunity to call a lib a lib.
 
2013-11-04 08:20:22 PM

jso2897: EJ25T: El Morro: super_grass: Biggest cali spenders:

Clearly, the issue is with conservative groups. Keep making love to that chicken, everyone.

What, are you f*cking stupid?

/ answer: yes.

Because California politics are directly analogous to every other state, and therefore are a valid comparison for national PAC expenditures.

/chart or graph = you win the prize!

You totally miss Supergrass' point, dude! He's saying that if nobody had to disclose, then our evil union thugs could buy ALL the politicians, and no one would ever know!
See how dumb us liberals are? Always working against our own interests. :D


. <- point
0 <- your head
 
Displayed 50 of 164 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report