• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Govt obtains wide AP phone records in probe

Don't you mean "by the Justice Department?" :popcorn2:


LOL !! Never has there been a more compartmentalized administration.

Look some of us are NOT Obama supporters, so we're not susceptable to his administrations BULL SH**.

When he or Jay Carney is up there claiming isolation from these scandals, they are talking to YOU guys.

Not the rest of us, who are fully aware that thses scandals all share something in common.

A direct link back to his Chicago political roots.

Go ahead, believe his lies, but don't expect objective adequately intelligent Americans to do the same.
 
I hope you're right, and I hope this
brings down the Obama
administration. It's been a long time coming. :cool:

The IRS scandal was released, I think as planned, as a stop gap if ever the Benghazi scandal really got legs.

NOW the "media" can claim objectivity and hound the administration while Obama can claim isolation.

Benghazi was a direct assault on Hillary ( as it should have been ) and Obama.

It was clear there were questions they could not answer, and it was very difficult to prove that they simply relied on nameless Govt officials.

The IRS scandal should be taken as a seperate scandal with the majority of the attention placed on Benghazi.

I think the "apology/lie" was orchestrated to be released when it was apparent they no longer could defend their position on Benghazi.
 
Stop right there: The IRS was 100% wrong to single out groups.

Are you trying to argue that Tea Party groups are predominantly non-political?
 
Are you trying to argue that Tea Party groups are predominantly non-political?

What does that matter? Move-on-dot-org is a far left wing political group with IRS tax exempt status
 
Are you trying to argue that Tea Party groups are predominantly non-political?

I'm not trying to argue about any particular group at all. The IRS has no business being partisan, irrespective of administration and party. It has no business targeting any group on its little "enemies list," and that seems to be the case here.
 
Are you trying to argue that Tea Party groups are predominantly non-political?

WaPo explains the issue

Ruth Marcus: IRS has been too lax on tax-exempt status - The Washington Post

But back to the scandal hiding in plain sight. In order to qualify for nonprofit, tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, groups must be “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare,” defined as activities “promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the community.”

However, the IRS has long interpreted “exclusively” to mean “primarily” and allowed 501(c)(4) groups to engage in partisan activity as long as it constitutes less than half their operations. The problem exploded after the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United, when the number and explicit political involvement of such groups mushroomed.

Its not about politics, but rather why Tea Party groups are singled out. They are no more or less likely to not qualify for this status than any of the hundreds of liberal or other groups that likewise engage in politics, but still qualified.
 
Are you trying to argue that Tea Party groups are predominantly non-political?

What difference does it make. Look, if the IRS was pin-pointing all political non-profits at least the administration could claim some sense of consistent policy.

But, it was clearly a tactic to influence the 2012 elections AFTER thr Dems got their asses handed to them as now we're learning it was done in 2010.

The Dems attacked the grass roots orginizations og the right, and let their non-profits go right on through.

The Tea party was never dead, it was just being harrased by the IRS and at the direction of Politicians like Max Baucus, Al Frankin and Chuck Schumer who wrote letters to the IRS in 2010 and 2012 telling them to investigate these groups.

And ONLY these groups. Heads should not only roll, people should go to prison for violating Americans Civil Rights AND illegally releasing Donors list from right wing non profits to organizations that were left wing.

So the IRS could HARRASS those people too.

Try as you may to mitigate the seriosuness of this scandal, I gaurantee it's MUCH deeper than we think it is.
 
Links please?
 
go to RealClearPolitics and read todays headlines

RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls

Even the most Obama worshiping koolAid drinking media outlets are turning on him


Not enough, however. The intrusions into the press are a very serious matter.

What's funny is that the mainstream media is largely very supportive of sitting governments..of either party. We see this clearly when the military is engaged, and nationalism kicks in. We've got the same issues of media obedience here in Canada.

So when the news media becomes truly angry...you know the government has finally gone too far even for the courtiers and commissars of the press.
 
Because these were political organizations which should have been filed as non-profit 527's. But instead these groups filed as social welfare 501(c)(4)s.

By law, social welfare groups cannot be primarily engaged in politics. This was the primary purpose of most of these groups. The reason they didn't file as 527's is so that they could keep their donors secret. We're looking at a gigantic money laundering effort by groups (both left and right) to skirt campaign finance laws. Remember, these groups all had the option to file as 527 PACs. Had they done so, they would have quickly obtained tax exempt status without any additional investigation because they were complying with the law.

We have a situation in which an office that was used to handling 1200 501(c)(4) applications a year, was suddenly swamped with 3400+ in the aftermath of Citizens United. Most, but not all of these applications were filed by conservative leaning groups and these applications were processed by (I believe) one to three individuals.

The IRS was 100% wrong to single out groups with the name of tea party, but they were right to investigate these groups. I think the biggest scandal here is that they did not investigate more groups. Any organization with party in their name should almost certainly be a 527, not a 501(c)(4); be it Democratic Party, Republican Party, or Tea Party.

A.C.O.R.N.

No scrutiny whatsoever until a two kids and a camera showed up.
 
What does that matter? Move-on-dot-org is a far left wing political group with IRS tax exempt status

Move on was a 527, which is what these groups should have filed as.

501(c)(4)'s are social welfare organizations like the AARP which are allowed to engage in politics, but they cannot be primarily political. These groups filed as 501(c)(4)s because this allows them to keep their donors secret. It's a clear abuse of the tax code. Basically, these groups should have been investigated and should not have been approved.

However, the criteria used to determine if they should have been investigated should have been balanced. For example, any group with party in the name should have raised a red flag, be it Democrat, Republican, or Tea.
 
A.C.O.R.N.

No scrutiny whatsoever until a two
kids and a camera showed up.

Remember Obama distancing himself from that group in 2008 ? People do not realize what kind of influence ACORN had on the Sub-Prime Collapse.

Arguing for lower lending standards for banks and for lowering the standards for the GSEs that allowed them to buy Sub-Prime loans and in 1997 allowed them to turn those crap loans into securities.

That One Community Group is to blame for massive lobbying in the early and mid 90s that Clinton apparently agreed with.
 
Move on was a 527, which is what these groups should have filed as.

501(c)(4)'s are social welfare organizations like the AARP which are allowed to engage in politics, but they cannot be primarily political. These groups filed as 501(c)(4)s because this allows them to keep their donors secret. It's a clear abuse of the tax code. Basically, these groups should have been investigated and should not have been approved.

However, the criteria used to determine if they should have been investigated should have been balanced. For example, any group with party in the name should have raised a red flag, be it Democrat, Republican, or Tea.

Nice try, but guess what not one democrat support group was targeted by the IRS, have you not heard the news, the IRS admits targeting right wing groups.
 
Move on was a 527, which is what these groups should have filed as.

501(c)(4)'s are social welfare organizations like the AARP which are allowed to engage in politics, but they cannot be primarily political. These groups filed as 501(c)(4)s because this allows them to keep their donors secret. It's a clear abuse of the tax code. Basically, these groups should have been investigated and should not have been approved.

However, the criteria used to determine if they should have been investigated should have been balanced. For example, any group with party in the name should have raised a red flag, be it Democrat, Republican, or Tea.

These groups are promoting social welfare though.

primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the community
 
He could, but the hypocrisy is worth noting. And many could just acknowledge that hypocrisy.

Since I didnt post here then and I dont and didnt approve of many of the things Bush did, no hypocrisy here. Nice try though.
 
Since I didnt post here then and I dont and didnt approve of many of the things Bush did, no hypocrisy here. Nice try though.

When you enter a conversation between others you should not assume the comment is about you alone, though I cannot verify nor deny your claim.
 
I thought you guys hated the AP. Overly "liberal" and what not.

Ah, so, if you don't like a person or an organization then it's OK for the government to massively violate their civil rights? That seems to fit pretty well with the Obama administration's thinking in any case.

If they'll do it to the AP then of course they'll do it to political opponents.

The claim here is that there was some huge threat to the American people that involved a reporter leaking something. It's hard to imagine what that might be, but considering the multifold and various lies we've gotten from this administration on Benghazi, Gunwalker, IRS, etc., I find distrust of this administration's motives to be completely rational.
 
Ah, so, if you don't like a person or an organization then it's OK for the government to massively violate their civil rights? That seems to fit pretty well with the Obama administration's thinking in any case.

If they'll do it to the AP then of course they'll do it to political opponents.

The claim here is that there was some huge threat to the American people that involved a reporter leaking something. It's hard to imagine what that might be, but considering the multifold and various lies we've gotten from this administration on Benghazi, Gunwalker, IRS, etc., I find distrust of this administration's motives to be completely rational.

Its amazing how the left has gone from "I may dislike what you say but Ill defend your right to say it" to "you guys did it too" in just 1 generation.

No one should be targeted by governmental agencies for political activities so long as they stay nuetral and do not inflict harm on others in some way.
 
Its amazing how the left has gone from "I may dislike what you say but Ill defend your right to say it" to "you guys did it too" in just 1 generation.

No one should be targeted by governmental agencies for political activities so long as they stay nuetral and do not inflict harm on others in some way.

But its ok to target people if they take a position?
 
But its ok to target people if they take a position?

By definition you do not retain tax exempt status if you advocate a party or a member of a party so you dont target them but you dont allow them to retain tax exempt either.
 
Move on was a 527, which is what these groups should have filed as.

501(c)(4)'s are social welfare organizations like the AARP which are allowed to engage in politics, but they cannot be primarily political. These groups filed as 501(c)(4)s because this allows them to keep their donors secret. It's a clear abuse of the tax code. Basically, these groups should have been investigated and should not have been approved.

However, the criteria used to determine if they should have been investigated should have been balanced. For example, any group with party in the name should have raised a red flag, be it Democrat, Republican, or Tea.

Oddly, groups that suggested a progressive or liberal lean didn't throw up a red flag.
 
Eric Holder:
"This was a very serious — a very serious leak, a very, very serious leak. I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 and I have to say that this is among — if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk."

<pause>

"Other than that, I really don't know know a thing about it."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom