babilfish
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 81
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
...give rational responses?
When I encounter something approaching a rational point, I'll be sure to do so.
...give rational responses?
When I encounter something approaching a rational point, I'll be sure to do so.
So, clearly you think one form of discrimination is wrong, but another is acceptable. I can't express how wrong, and dangerous that thinking is among todays radical liberals.
Nothing that comes out of the two party system of
America has any truth to it.
Doesn't change the fact that PACs have been abusing the snot out of this. As Congress will not act to fix this, if it takes political abuse to stomp on it, so be it.
And this is no different from how the Bush Adminstration directed the IRS to audit the NAACP and Greenpeace for no good reason, except here, PACs have actually been abusing the tax code.
God, your being obtuse.
Of course, scrutinizing someone's application for non-profit status
because they're black would be wrong in most any case. One's racial makeup has is no indication of whether or not they're trying to game the system and become a non-profit despite the primary motive of their organization being political in nature.
In the right circumstances, you could apply more scrutiny to left-leaning organizations provided certain evidence was presented that could justify such an approach. This isn't a right-versus-left deal, this is a "too stupid to understand why the IRS might apply more scrutiny to Tea Baggers during the last election cycle versus informed, non-hysterical lot who don't get panicky and weepy and actually look at things with some degree of rational thought".
They didn't go far enough. Any 501(c)4 with anything even remotely political in their descriptions should have gotten a full force audit if they were over a threshold in assets. I don't give a **** who you are backing.
The past two elections have been abused up the *** by PACs. And so many 501(c)4s are functionally PACs. The Service needs to come down hard.
If you want to be all political, fine, just don't abuse the tax exemption to do it.
Somebody is getting fired over this, but if you think it's Obama, you're delusional.
Although I tend to agree with Obvious Child. These tax-exempt organizations deserve broad and overwhelming scrutiny, they've been abused for too long.
God, your being obtuse.
Of course, scrutinizing someone's application for non-profit status because they're black would be wrong in most any case. One's racial makeup has is no indication of whether or not they're trying to game the system and become a non-profit despite the primary motive of their organization being political in nature.
In the right circumstances, you could apply more scrutiny to left-leaning organizations provided certain evidence was presented that could justify such an approach. This isn't a right-versus-left deal, this is a "too stupid to understand why the IRS might apply more scrutiny to Tea Baggers during the last election cycle versus informed, non-hysterical lot who don't get panicky and weepy and actually look at things with some degree of rational thought".
How is this news? We knew this last week. It was in the IG report.Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved in the targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.
IRS officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea party-affiliated groups.
IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups - The Washington Post
and up the ladder it goes all the way to the WH
pack your bags Obama
Irrelevent.
IF PACs in general are the problem then PACs in general should have been investigated.
Oh, you brought up 2 left wing orginizations that QUALIFIED FOR TAX EXEMPT STATUS.
Then they should come down on ALL non-profits, not just the ones they don't like. That's the real crime, here.
It's kind of sad how clueless conservatives are.
I mean, I'm still not exactly sure what the scandal here is, that the IRS rightly applied more scrutiny to teabaggers last election season?
Actually presidents have been using the IRS to punish or eliminate certain groups political or otherwise since its founding. I don't see how anyone can justify criminal behavior by simply saying those bastards are abusing the tax code or that past presidents did it. Everyone should be aware past presidents have done it. How does that change anything?
You might want to save your pity for yourself if you genuinely don't understand what the scandal is here.
They profile
"I’m mad. It is un-American, it is wrong, and we have to make sure that this gets fixed,” Missouri’s senior senator said. “There’s a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold in America. That is because in America, we don’t apply the law based on who you are, who you know, or what you believe. We apply the law equally.”
McCaskill went on to say that the targeting of one group based on political beliefs “infuriates” her.
“We should not only fire the head of the IRS, which has occurred, but we’ve got to go down the line and find every single person who had anything to do with this and make sure that they are removed from the IRS and the word goes out that this is unacceptable,” she said. “It is un-American, it is wrong, and it cannot occur again.”
McCaskill concluded by saying many groups claim to be charities while doing political work and that it is a problem which needs to be fixed “but not in a way that highlights one belief over another.”
If they had the time and resources, sure.
Except that they don't.
What the IRS did was essentially the same thing the Israelis do at their borders. They profile.
The 501(c)4 tax laws explicitly prohibit political activity as a primary function. So thus, groups that have overtly political names get extra scrutiny. I don't see single thing wrong on coming down on Conservative leaning 501(c)4s that are acting as PACs. What I didn't like was how the IRS didn't come down on Liberal groups, but that may be because Liberal groups weren't bat**** stupid to put an overly political title on their applications. When the status you are applying for directly bans you from being primarily political, you are a moron to have an overtly political name. If these groups weren't morons, they'd name it like "St Martin's Swim Club."
Then you have no
understanding of this topic. The entire point of why the IRS looked into 501(c)4s was to ensure they were not actually PACs. Saying PACs are irrelevant is saying the basis for the entire problem is irrelevant. Which makes you look extremely ignorant.
I get that you really have no idea what you are discussing. First, PACs are a different organization, with different tax law and different laws. You cannot operate a tax exempt, no donor list PAC. What several groups tried to do was get a tax exempt, no public donor list PAC. That is prohibited. Hence why the IRS went after these groups. PACs are free to operate as they want under the PAC rules.
You just demonstrated you have absolutely no understanding of this topic at all.
A long time ago. I also brought them up as examples of where the Republicans had no reasonable basis for scrutiny. Yet where has anyone screaming scandal said anything about them? You won't ever criticize the Bush administration for going after groups for no reason other than their dislike of the groups.
I don't think you want to start citing Democratic congressmen as an expert on laws governing IRS procedures.
I don't think you want to start citing Democratic congressmen as an expert
on laws governing IRS procedures.
The thing that struck me while watching the House IRS hearings is how monumentally incompetent, ill-informed, and unintelligent the House members were. They acted more like petulant children than serious leaders.
The thing that struck me
I've got a bridge to sell you if you are buying what the administration is selling on the two scandals.
Careful who you call ignorant Obvious as you Cherry pick around this scandal to post content that no one finds the least bit relevent.
I'm glad you agree that they broke the law.