Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 95

Thread: AP Exclusive: IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

  1. #81
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: AP Exclusive: IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    My point is this. Taking the figures you found in the leftist news articles and reports on face value, the fact the majority of applications seen shortly after the Citizens United decision were affiliated with Republican groups does not by itself mean they were entering in an attempt to get into some tax fraud,money laundering thing.

    It seems quite obvious they were looking to organize to counter the billions that had already been spent through the shadow operations of the Progressive Machine. That's billions. That's not a lesser extent.

    For example, Annenberg has been invited into our nations classrooms via their Annenberg Learner program, which pushes a Progressive agenda as a foundation to support Progressive ideology and the candidates who support it. Why don't you read their annual report and then comment about "lesser" extents?

    Annenberg Foundation | Financial Information

    The Tides Foundation pushes their agenda and funds liberal/progressive candidates and legislation protected from taxes by 501c3 status as well, along with outfits like the Ford Foundation, and the MacArther Foundation.

    Lesser extent? That's laughable.
    The political organizations, both left and right, filing for 501(c)(4) status were almost all universally engaging in behaviour that was contrary to the spirit of the law. Here's the important question, why would any organization file as a 501(c)(4) when they could file as a 527? Filing as a 501(c)(4) creates many headaches that don't exist for a 527. However, 501(c)(4)'s don't have to disclose their donors.

    Citizens united opened the door to unlimited corporate spending on campaigns. However, corporations don't want to be seen as political, because they're not interested in red or blue dollars, they'd rather stick with the green stuff. So after Citizen's United, the primary use of 501(c)(4)s in poliitcal campaigns was to evade the financial disclosure requirements of 527's, while masqurading as public welfare groups. This was done by both left and right wing groups, but it was roughtly an 80/20 split, conservative vs liberal.

    During 2010-2011, there was a tremendous outcry by campaign finance watchdog groups, (on both sides) to investigate behaviour that was clearly not in keeping with the purpose of 501(c)(4) organizations. The IRS tried to comply, but did it incorrectly, profiling the groups most likely to engage in illicit behaviour.

    I'm not exactly sure about your facination with the so called "progressive machine" (whatever that is). But seriously, If you can find it.. please take it out back and put it out of its misery. If such a thing exits, why couldn't it managed to get universal backgroud checks passed with the presidency, the senate, and with 90% public support. It's like striking out at T-Ball... in a league that doesn't count a miss as a strike.

  2. #82
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: AP Exclusive: IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    The political organizations, both left and right, filing for 501(c)(4) status were almost all universally engaging in behaviour that was contrary to the spirit of the law. Here's the important question, why would any organization file as a 501(c)(4) when they could file as a 527? Filing as a 501(c)(4) creates many headaches that don't exist for a 527. However, 501(c)(4)'s don't have to disclose their donors.

    Citizens united opened the door to unlimited corporate spending on campaigns. However, corporations don't want to be seen as political, because they're not interested in red or blue dollars, they'd rather stick with the green stuff. So after Citizen's United, the primary use of 501(c)(4)s in poliitcal campaigns was to evade the financial disclosure requirements of 527's, while masqurading as public welfare groups. This was done by both left and right wing groups, but it was roughtly an 80/20 split, conservative vs liberal.

    During 2010-2011, there was a tremendous outcry by campaign finance watchdog groups, (on both sides) to investigate behaviour that was clearly not in keeping with the purpose of 501(c)(4) organizations. The IRS tried to comply, but did it incorrectly, profiling the groups most likely to engage in illicit behaviour.

    I'm not exactly sure about your facination with the so called "progressive machine" (whatever that is). But seriously, If you can find it.. please take it out back and put it out of its misery. If such a thing exits, why couldn't it managed to get universal backgroud checks passed with the presidency, the senate, and with 90% public support. It's like striking out at T-Ball... in a league that doesn't count a miss as a strike.
    Taking the figures you've "located" for face value, you've taken a slice of time and drawn a conclusion about what that time represents. 80/20 has no meaning when viewed in the context of your claims about money laundering and tax evasion.

    As to the "Progressive Machine", I have already suggested you do some research and even provided a link as a starting point. You'll find George Soros, Tides, Annenberg, AFL-CIO, the NEA, and many others, all together, all serving on various Boards together, all involved in hundreds of millions spent to push the Progressive agenda.

  3. #83
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,488

    Re: AP Exclusive: IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    The political organizations, both left and right, filing for 501(c)(4) status were almost all universally engaging in behaviour that was contrary to the spirit of the law. Here's the important question, why would any organization file as a 501(c)(4) when they could file as a 527? Filing as a 501(c)(4) creates many headaches that don't exist for a 527. However, 501(c)(4)'s don't have to disclose their donors.

    Citizens united opened the door to unlimited corporate spending on campaigns. However, corporations don't want to be seen as political, because they're not interested in red or blue dollars, they'd rather stick with the green stuff. So after Citizen's United, the primary use of 501(c)(4)s in poliitcal campaigns was to evade the financial disclosure requirements of 527's, while masqurading as public welfare groups. This was done by both left and right wing groups, but it was roughtly an 80/20 split, conservative vs liberal.

    During 2010-2011, there was a tremendous outcry by campaign finance watchdog groups, (on both sides) to investigate behaviour that was clearly not in keeping with the purpose of 501(c)(4) organizations. The IRS tried to comply, but did it incorrectly, profiling the groups most likely to engage in illicit behaviour.

    I'm not exactly sure about your facination with the so called "progressive machine" (whatever that is). But seriously, If you can find it.. please take it out back and put it out of its misery. If such a thing exits, why couldn't it managed to get universal backgroud checks passed with the presidency, the senate, and with 90% public support. It's like striking out at T-Ball... in a league that doesn't count a miss as a strike.
    If that's true, then why did the IRS only go after Right Wing and Jewish groups?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #84
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: AP Exclusive: IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    If that's true, then why did the IRS only go after Right Wing and Jewish groups?
    300 groups were targeted, 75 of them were conservative.

    The issue is not that the groups were targeted, it's likely that they deserved to be targeted. The issue is why they were targeted.

  5. #85
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,488

    Re: AP Exclusive: IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    300 groups were targeted, 75 of them were conservative.

    The issue is not that the groups were targeted, it's likely that they deserved to be targeted. The issue is why they were targeted.
    Ok...LOL!!!! Why isn't the IRS using that as their defense?

    If that were true, the IRS wouldn't have apologized for their wrong doing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #86
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #87
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: AP Exclusive: IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    I dont see the problem.. any organisation that gets tax exemption should be the constant target of the IRS to see if they abuse the tax exemption rules.
    because when you are targeting specific groups, due to their political lean, it serves as the government endorsing one political group over another

  8. #88
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: AP Exclusive: IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    So it is bad when the IRS is used as a political tool, but when the military and Justice departments are used as political tools, then it is not a problem?
    usual PeteEU tactic: say something moronic> have it addressed> change subjects

  9. #89
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: AP Exclusive: IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Personally I think all such groups need additional scrutiny. The rules say they aren't supposed to be trying to influence legislation, but there are just SO MANY of these groups that have clear political intentions. I mean, an organization whose express purpose is to legalize marijuana isn't trying to influence legislation? Really?



    THEY LITERALLY SAY THEIR GOAL IS TO INFLUENCE THE LAW. It's their reason for existence.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...s-2012-el.html

    read Luthors posts in this thread

  10. #90
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: AP Exclusive: IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    because when you are targeting specific groups, due to their political lean, it serves as the government endorsing one political group over another
    Imagine if they'd targeted Moveon or some other leftie group, Pete would be up in arms.....control.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •