• 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!

Tea Party Groups' Suit Against IRS Moves Forward

I've addressed it before

Undoubtably some were. But I'm unable to believe that the disparity between liberal and conservative groups attempting to circumvent American tax law is anywhere on line with the disparity of additional scrutiny given to conservative groups compared to liberal ones.

You know one thing I haven't seen many liberals consider here? Why is it okay to point out disproportionate action under the law when it comes to race, but somehow disproportionate action under the law as it relates to ideology is not a legitimate thing to point to in this case?

Because the anti-racism rhetoric coming from the Libbos is just for show.
 
You can complain all you want. What you don't have is evidence.

Of course there is evidence! Lois Lerner admitted guilt that the beginning of this, but tried to pawn it off on "rogue agents" in Cincinnati. So she admitted guilt on behalf of the IRS and then lied about its origins.

That was on the FIRST DAY of this scandal. The year since then has been obstruction, pleasing the fifth and "lost" emails.
 
I've addressed it before

Undoubtably some were. But I'm unable to believe that the disparity between liberal and conservative groups attempting to circumvent American tax law is anywhere on line with the disparity of additional scrutiny given to conservative groups compared to liberal ones.

You know one thing I haven't seen many liberals consider here? Why is it okay to point out disproportionate action under the law when it comes to race, but somehow disproportionate action under the law as it relates to ideology is not a legitimate thing to point to in this case?


The IRS only became aware of the tea party in 2010 because they were constantly in the news spewing anti-government and anti-tax rhetoric. Someone who openly says they're going to defy the IRS in the media is essentially begging for more scrutiny from the IRS. Doh.

The only new Liberal groups that I recall in the news back in 2010 was OWS but I don't think they applied for special tax status...at least I didn't hear of any that did.

So if it's disproportionate perhaps it's because the anti-tax tea party came onto the scene like a wild fire and all the little local political groups started to disproportionately apply to the IRS for 501c status as "charities".
 
Good. Bring on the trial and lets see if any these tea party groups really are "social charites" that qualify for 501c status.


If those groups don't like the "burdensome scrutiny" of the IRS then wait until they see the "burdensome scrutiny" of the justice system. lol

I really think the desire for a scandal is going to backfire.

Once it becomes clear that some of these groups are abusing their status the party will end.

And apparently many of them were formed are conduits to avoid the not primarily political limitation. Spend 49% on political activity. Donate the other 51% to another 501(c)(4) who spends 49% of THAT on political activity, then donates 51% to another (or the original). Rinse and repeat until virtually all the money goes to political activity. All anonymous, of course.
 
So much for due process, eh? To hell with equal protection under the law?

What a wonderful country you want to create!

Judicial review has been around since Marbury vs Madison. To hell with factual history, huh?



The country doesn't abide by the Articles of Confederation anymore. It's time Conservatives got used to it.
 
Apparently JumpinJack thinks "Tea Party" is probable cause.

No reason for the IRS be suspicious of groups whose name is an acronym for "taxed enough already"?

Would the DEA be suspicious of groups called "gonna get high no matter what you say"?
 
The IRS only became aware of the tea party in 2010 because they were constantly in the news spewing anti-government and anti-tax rhetoric. Someone who openly says they're going to defy the IRS in the media is essentially begging for more scrutiny from the IRS. Doh.

The only new Liberal groups that I recall in the news back in 2010 was OWS but I don't think they applied for special tax status...at least I didn't hear of any that did.

So if it's disproportionate perhaps it's because the anti-tax tea party came onto the scene like a wild fire and all the little local political groups started to disproportionately apply to the IRS for 501c status as "charities".

You do realize you're arguing for tyranny? Be careful what you wish for.
 
I really think the desire for a scandal is going to backfire.

Once it becomes clear that some of these groups are abusing their status the party will end.

And apparently many of them were formed are conduits to avoid the not primarily political limitation. Spend 49% on political activity. Donate the other 51% to another 501(c)(4) who spends 49% of THAT on political activity, then donates 51% to another (or the original). Rinse and repeat until virtually all the money goes to political activity. All anonymous, of course.


LOL !

Backfire it has. On the Obama administration and the Democrats.


Lois Lerner ADMITTED targeting in 2012 and so did Obama, admitting that he read the inspector general's report and vowed to get to the bottom of the targeting that took place.

2 years later there's not a smidgen of corruption.

I think the Democrats strategy for dealing with this scandal is genius

Call it a " Witch hunt ", and then perpetuate it and legitimize it by Lying, destroying evidence and 24 consecutive 5th amendment pleas.

Brilliant !!
 
No reason for the IRS be suspicious of groups whose name is an acronym for "taxed enough already"?

Would the DEA be suspicious of groups called "gonna get high no matter what you say"?


Irrelevant.

This issue isn't " suspicion " it was targeted harassment based on political opposition.
 
The tea party has all the makings of becoming a tyranny, too.

How exactly does a group whose stated purpose is to decrease the size of government, be for tyranny?
 
LOL !

Backfire it has. On the Obama administration and the Democrats.


Lois Lerner ADMITTED targeting in 2012 and so did Obama, admitting that he read the inspector general's report and vowed to get to the bottom of the targeting that took place.

2 years later there's not a smidgen of corruption.

I think the Democrats strategy for dealing with this scandal is genius

Call it a " Witch hunt ", and then perpetuate it and legitimize it by Lying, destroying evidence and 24 consecutive 5th amendment pleas.

Brilliant !!

I read the AGs report.

They gigged the IRS for laziness. Using keywords put groups arbitrarily under greater scrutiny while allowing others who may have merited it to slip by.

Not that some were singled out but that ALL should have been actually scrutinized for compliance.
 
The tea party has all the makings of becoming a tyranny, too.


But Obama called the targeting of Conservatives " intolerable and inexcusable " after reading the inspector general's report.

Remember ? 2012 ? I do.

Then he said there wasn't a " smidgen of corruption "

What happened ?
 
I read the AGs report.

They gigged the IRS for laziness. Using keywords put groups arbitrarily under greater scrutiny while allowing others who may have merited it to slip by.

Not that some were singled out but that ALL should have been actually scrutinized for compliance.


But Obama called the targeting of Conservatives " intolerable and inexcusable .

Then 2 years later he said there wasn't a smidgen of corruption in the IRS.

What happened ?
 
But Obama called the targeting of Conservatives " intolerable and inexcusable .

Then 2 years later he said there wasn't a smidgen of corruption in the IRS.

What happened ?

Bureaucratic incompetence/misbehavior can exist without corruption.

Stupidity and laziness.
 
Bureaucratic incompetence/misbehavior can exist without corruption.

Stupidity and laziness.


LOL !

So that's why she took the 5th 24 consecutive times ?

So she wouldn't lose her job ?

Thats why the IRS destroyed Federal records ? 6 hard drives that just so happened to belong to people under investigation ?

Because people might be fired ?

You're not very objective are you ? I wonder why ?

No matter, most Americans are and thats why the IRSs and the administrations strategy for dealing with this scandal is a joke.

Obstruction just perpetuates the scandal and legitimize these charges.
 
No reason for the IRS be suspicious of groups whose name is an acronym for "taxed enough already"?

Would the DEA be suspicious of groups called "gonna get high no matter what you say"?


So you think that the IRS should give extra scrutiny to people who don't like the IRS?

That you don't see the flaw in your logic is amazing.
 
Judicial review has been around since Marbury vs Madison. To hell with factual history, huh?



The country doesn't abide by the Articles of Confederation anymore. It's time Conservatives got used to it.

So, NO due process? Guilty until proven innocent? Gotcha, babe!
 
No reason for the IRS be suspicious of groups whose name is an acronym for "taxed enough already"?

Would the DEA be suspicious of groups called "gonna get high no matter what you say"?

So much for the 1st Amendment.
 
So much for due process, eh? To hell with equal protection under the law?

What a wonderful country you want to create!

The tea party are the plaintiffs filing the lawsuit. Due process is usually for the accused aka defendents which in this case is the IRS. Are you arguing that the IRS should have due process?









.
 
Last edited:
Um, the tea party are the plaintiffs filing the lawsuit. Due process is usually for the defendents which in this case is the IRS.




.


I'm talking about the groups who were illegally targetted by the IRS. They had their civil rights violated.
 
I'm talking about the groups who were illegally targetted by the IRS. They had their civil rights violated.

Then they should take it to court.
 
Back
Top Bottom