• 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!

IRS conspiracies fall apart as BOLO list targeting ‘progressive’ groups revealed

I disagree with your view that the two groups are NOT educational. I also disagree with your belief that Media Matters is an "extension" of the Democratic Party (thanks for using the correct word )

A better page for people to read about Media Matters would be this one - Issues | Media Matters for America

for the Media Research Center, try this page - About Us | Media Research Center
But you don't disagree that the Media Research Center is an extension of the Republican Party. Got it.
 
Then how would the tea party groups going around and holding rallies on political issues not be for educational services? They are educating on the conservative viewpoint of issues, how is that different from MMA? or MRC?

You guys want to have it both ways. Pick one or the other and pass a law to that effect.
More straw! The argument at hand is whether baggers and progressive groups are being scrutinized over their tax status.

NEWS FLASH: Both are.

If you believe Media Matters is not within their proper status, report them.

I never said anything about any bagger group being in violation of their status.

You NEVER THINK YOUR COMMENTS TOWARDS ME THROUGH!

FFS!
 
I see you want to ignore the word the other buzzwords and the disparate treatment of conservative and liberal groups.

As for bolded, its irrelevant. Whats relevant is that the IRS discharges the law as completely as they can, not how they want it to be. Whats relevant is they treat both liberal and conservative groups equally regardless of what they feel the definition of social welfare may be.

Do you know for a fact that the conservative groups were "legit" and the liberal ones weren't?

Do you know if simply scanning the apps based on "suspect"names didn't reveal further "red flags" and THATS why it took longer than it did for liberal groups with "suspect" names.

No, you don't.

I think we need to close the 501(c)(4), loophole. Pare it back to cycling clubs being able to advocate for new bike lanes and not political campaigns and solve the problem instead of bitching about bungled attempts to cope with the ****ed up way it is now.
 
More straw! The argument at hand is whether baggers and progressive groups are being scrutinized over their tax status.

NEWS FLASH: Both are.

If you believe Media Matters is not within their proper status, report them.

I never said anything about any bagger group being in violation of their status.

You NEVER THINK YOUR COMMENTS TOWARDS ME THROUGH!

FFS!

Ive thought it through.

Media Matters advocates the political point of view and educates based upon that view. If a Tea Party group does the same thing, why were they treated differently under the law?

THAT is my point. Not that Media Matters should be investigated but that the Tea Party groups should not have been. You cannot say Media Matters is fine but Tea Party groups are not. Both are ok or both are not.
 
More straw! The argument at hand is whether baggers and progressive groups are being scrutinized over their tax status.

No, the argument at hand isn't over whether conservative groups and bed-wetting liberal groups were scrutinized. It is over whether or not they were scrutinized EQUALLY. This to me is a moot point, anyway because NEITHER should have been filing 501c4 in the first place.

Information laundering is where, if anywhere, there is a scandal here.
 
Do you know for a fact that the conservative groups were "legit" and the liberal ones weren't?

Do you know if simply scanning the apps based on "suspect"names didn't reveal further "red flags" and THATS why it took longer than it did for liberal groups with "suspect" names.

No, you don't.

I think we need to close the 501(c)(4), loophole. Pare it back to cycling clubs being able to advocate for new bike lanes and not political campaigns and solve the problem instead of bitching about bungled attempts to cope with the ****ed up way it is now.

No I dont. What I do know is according to the IG report conservative groups were flagged according to code words rather than overt political activity like endorsing candidates. Dude. Liberal groups were not sent to the DC determination unit, they were getting approved, they were able to be approved by line employees. That was not true of conservative groups. A grand total of 4 groups were approved between 2010 and 2012. You really want to stretch credibility by calling it "red flags"?
 
No I dont. What I do know is according to the IG report conservative groups were flagged according to code words rather than overt political activity like endorsing candidates. Dude. Liberal groups were not sent to the DC determination unit, they were getting approved, they were able to be approved by line employees. That was not true of conservative groups. A grand total of 4 groups were approved between 2010 and 2012. You really want to stretch credibility by calling it "red flags"?

Still doesn't change the fact that they were free to operate until approved.

Nor the fact that CU was VERY unpopular among dem voters at the time and THAT may be why it looks like no dem groups were involved is because they weren't. That they considered the risk of being associated with unlimited anonymous donations to high to risk it. (Sticking with already approved groups. I'm not claiming their hands are clean on this, just that they were avoiding bad "optics" out of pure self interest).
 
This is the real scandal. Apparently George, a GOP opereative appointed by Bush, and Issa worked on this thing together to produce a bogus report.

IRS Inspector General, Darrell Issa Communicated Multiple Times In 2012


J. Russell George, a Treasury Department inspector general, testified Tuesday to the Senate Finance Committee that his department was in touch with Issa's office several times in 2012 and this year regarding its IRS investigation.
 
Still doesn't change the fact that they were free to operate until approved.

Nor the fact that CU was VERY unpopular among dem voters at the time and THAT may be why it looks like no dem groups were involved is because they weren't. That they considered the risk of being associated with unlimited anonymous donations to high to risk it. (Sticking with already approved groups. I'm not claiming their hands are clean on this, just that they were avoiding bad "optics" out of pure self interest).

"Free" to operate under IRS scrutiny. Which for most of the country doesnt really mean free. It means watched and be ready to have your life turned inside out. Proper procedure would have been to approve or not approve within 120 days and allow appeals for those not approved and examine political activity of applications in the future that show for red flags.

I have said repeatedly, Im perfectly willing to let liberal or conservative groups slide some and approve some that shouldnt than have the IRS do what they did---abuse its power, whether it was accidental or intentional. Government should err on the side of caution when it comes to possible abuse of power.
 
This is the real scandal. Apparently George, a GOP opereative appointed by Bush, and Issa worked on this thing together to produce a bogus report.

IRS Inspector General, Darrell Issa Communicated Multiple Times In 2012


J. Russell George, a Treasury Department inspector general, testified Tuesday to the Senate Finance Committee that his department was in touch with Issa's office several times in 2012 and this year regarding its IRS investigation.

IRS Director Douglas Shulman's wife is an executive with Public Campaign. An organization "dedicated to removing public money from political campaigns".

Staff | Public Campaign

Susan L. Anderson is the Senior Program Advisor for Public Campaign, a non-profit, non-partisan organization committed to comprehensive campaign finance reform. Since 1997, she has worked extensively with national organizations and Congressional offices in promoting “Clean Money Campaign Reform,” a full public financing system now in effect in Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont.

So... the IRS Director's wife is dedicated to removing private(read: CORPORATE) money from the political process? The very thing that the Citizen's United ruling opened the floodgates to which subsequently led to all of these groups filing 501c4?

Potential problem here?
 
IRS Director Douglas Shulman's wife is an executive with Public Campaign. An organization "dedicated to removing public money from political campaigns".

Staff | Public Campaign



So... the IRS Director's wife is dedicated to removing private(read: CORPORATE) money from the political process? The very thing that the Citizen's United ruling opened the floodgates to which subsequently led to all of these groups filing 501c4?

Potential problem here?

Deflection. It's all you got.

Meanwhile we need to investigate George and see why he was in contact with Issa. What did they talk about? What was their plan? Did they break any laws by deciding to exclude evidence in his now discredited report?
 
Deflection. It's all you got.

Meanwhile we need to investigate George and see why he was in contact with Issa. What did they talk about? What was their plan? Did they break any laws by deciding to exclude evidence in his now discredited report?
Deflection, my ass.

Information laundering is where the "meat" is here if there is any at all and Citizen's United is a powerful motive. You know it, too, it's just that you're too busy cheerleading to offer an honest opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom