• 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 targeting included liberal groups

There is a major difference between say, Emerge America, "a liberal group, that lists as its sole reason for existence as, to train, and prepare democrat women to run for political office....", And a Tea Party group that's purpose is to educate people on the constitution. Can any of you smart liberals tell me why it is that out of hundreds of groups targeted with the names, Tea Party, Constitution, Freedom, or anything else on the "BOLO" list, and y'all come up with 1 single group that was denied, (and should have been) makes it all even? Are you kidding me?

There were at least 12 separate groups within the IRS, nationwide, targeting conservative groups....So, Cummings is a liar at best.

Twelve different groups within IRS targeted conservatives | The Daily Caller
 
:lol:


I wonder how long it takes you to spin these things into something you can believe. Tell me, do you find conservative media sources to tell you how to feel about these things, or are you just the victim of what I would call self-brainwashing?

:lol:

No, you were just given the name of the group that was actually DENIED by the IRS, which is ACTUALLY what you were asking for.








In SIX different posts you challenge someone to name a Progressive group which was denied, and now you act aghast because no one answered a question you didn't ask. Totally shameless, even by your standards.
:lamo

I'm sorry, I have to stop here, I cannot take any more, cannot even finish reading the rest of your post. For YOU to claim another is "so ideologically blind" is just too much laughter for one night. I'm sure you feel like you made good points, but intelligent and objective people know better. And even those who are not intelligent or objective can just read above at the six different times you asked the same question before acting like you asked a different one to see just how incredibly biased you are.
So...having to wait 2 years for someone to give you ten million dollars is worse than never getting it?

I love Republican non-logic.


I find it amusing you post that like you believe it actually helps your cause. The flip side of that is that applications of progressive groups could be DENIED on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. And, from what I've read (and you're welcome to post a source saying otherwise, I'm not 100% sure about this statement) the only group which actually WAS denied was a progressive group, is that correct?

Again, and I've said this for weeks now, people are worried about the wrong dang thing. Instead of worrying about groups in limbo or denied, we should be worried about the groups who were passed and the fact so many of them clearly seem to be skirting our laws in order to pump more money into an already corrupted government. But no, you and your buddy Fenton there are far more interested in playing the team game, putting down the other team so your team can win.

Your concern regarding PACs skirting tax law is a bit insincere.

Did it take the illegal release of confidential donors list and the harassment of groups you oppose on a ideological level to peak your interest or has this always been a concern of yours ?

Sounds like your'e just trying to defend the undefensable to me and prior to the IRS getting popped for targeting groups based on their beliefs you really could have cared less.

Just as long as Democrats got elected.

Well they were elected and now we're paying for it with multiple scandals and a anemic eceonomy.
And thats after 7 trillion in new debt and 4 trillion in QE.

Wer'e a laughing stock to the rest of the word. Defined internationally by the stupidist of our electorate. Obama is Putins bitch with J. Kerry publicly anouncing " we don't want to make Russia mad at us " .
Govt officials taking the Fifth in front of Congress and our top law enforcment official commiting perjury. Something us little people go to jail for.

I can't figure out what your'e so proud about.
 
There is a major difference between say, Emerge America, "a liberal group, that lists as
its sole reason for existence as, to train, and prepare democrat women to run for political office....", And a Tea Party group that's purpose is to educate people on the constitution.
Can any of you smart liberals tell me why it is that out of hundreds of groups targeted with the names, Tea Party, Constitution, Freedom, or anything else on the "BOLO" list, and y'all come up with 1 single group that was denied, (and should have been) makes it all even? Are you kidding me?

There were at least 12 separate groups within the IRS, nationwide, targeting conservative groups....So, Cummings is a liar at best.

Twelve different groups within IRS targeted conservatives | The Daily Caller

I have a account on HuffPo, just to harass all of the idiots and in the chat section I asked for them to name ONE Progressive group that was targeted.

I got the same group multiple times.

It must be in the talking points.
 
I have a account on HuffPo, just to harass all of the idiots and in the chat section I asked for them to name ONE Progressive group that was targeted.

I got the same group multiple times.

It must be in the talking points.

It's the only damn 501c4 group to be denied. There aren't any others. I'm sure 2+2=4 would be a talking point if a republican said it was five.

Not that any facts, reality, or critical thinking will ever permeate your bubble.
 
It's the only damn 501c4 group to be denied. There aren't any others. I'm sure 2+2=4 would be a talking point if a republican said it was five.

Not that any facts, reality, or critical thinking will ever permeate your bubble.

In a 2 year time frame leading up to the 2012 election, only 4 groups inside the naming limitations were granted status. Obama may not have directed it, but he surely benefitted from it.
 
Why is this just NOW coming out? Sounds like a 4th quarter lie, to try and keep some folks out of prison.

Or there has been a deliberate attempt to selectively release information to give the appearance of a scandal.
 
In a 2 year time frame leading up to the 2012 election, only 4 groups inside the naming limitations were granted status. Obama may not have directed it, but he surely benefitted from it.

How exactly did Obama benefit?
 
In a 2 year time frame leading up to the 2012 election, only 4 groups inside the naming limitations were granted status. Obama may not have directed it, but he surely benefitted from it.

So you think those right wing groups would have helped with Romney's campaign?

Thanks for admitting that the IRS was right for investigating those groups.
 
Or there has been a deliberate attempt to selectively release information to give the appearance of a scandal.

By the IRS? They sabotaged themselves? :roll:
 
How exactly did Obama benefit?

By tying up the resources of those that did not hold the same political beliefs as him. By making them unsure of how to accept donations and how to file accurately and file legally those same donations. Do I need to keep going or are you done playing ignorant yet?
 
So you think those right wing groups would have helped with Romney's campaign?

Thanks for admitting that the IRS was right for investigating those groups.

Getting out the vote is considered social welfare. Thanks for proving you STILL dont know what you are talking about. A lot of the efforts of those groups centered on that and on positions that were friendly to the Romney campaign. Education of policy issues is classified as social welfare work and is seemingly allowed for liberal groups but not conservative ones---thanks for the cognitive dissonance.
 
... a Tea Party group that's purpose is to educate people on the constitution...

Holy train wreck! If there is one thing Tea Party groups should not do is try to educate any one, except maybe themselves.
 
Getting out the vote is considered social welfare. Thanks for proving you STILL dont know what you are talking about. A lot of the efforts of those groups centered on that and on positions that were friendly to the Romney campaign. Education of policy issues is classified as social welfare work and is seemingly allowed for liberal groups but not conservative ones---thanks for the cognitive dissonance.

IOW, GOTV and education efforts are OK for tax exempt status, meaning that even without approval those groups could have engaged in such activities without worry.

Thanks for admitting that the lack of IRS approval did not hinder those groups in any way
 
By tying up the resources of those that did not hold the same political beliefs as him. By making them unsure of how to accept donations and how to file accurately and file legally those same donations. Do I need to keep going or are you done playing ignorant yet?

I'm not sure there's any amount of mental gymnastics that can possibly justify the idea that political spending by conservatives was in some way impeded.

Conservatives spent 90% of all 501c spending in 2010 and 85% in 2012. And almost all of the 501c spending by liberal groups was through 501c5 and 510c6 groups, ie Unions and tradegroups.

Political Nonprofits | OpenSecrets
Political Nonprofits | OpenSecrets

That's 265 Million dollars to 34 that conservative 501c4 groups outspent liberal groups, and yet you somehow believe that conservative resources were tied up?

You can't just make these inflammatory accusations without any evidence. Unless that's the new Republican Party platform.
 
I'm not sure there's any amount of mental gymnastics that can possibly justify the idea that political spending by conservatives was in some way impeded.

Conservatives spent 90% of all 501c spending in 2010 and 85% in 2012. And almost all of the 501c spending by liberal groups was through 501c5 and 510c6 groups, ie Unions and tradegroups.

Political Nonprofits | OpenSecrets
Political Nonprofits | OpenSecrets

That's 265 Million dollars to 34 that conservative 501c4 groups outspent liberal groups, and yet you somehow believe that conservative resources were tied up?

You can't just make these inflammatory accusations without any evidence. Unless that's the new Republican Party platform.

Do you honestly think that a not for profit isnt going to slow down what they are doing when their tax status is in question? You think donors arent going to wait? Its common sense that they will tie up money with lawyers and meetings and resources trying to find out whats going on. I dont understand how you feel they would not do any of the things I described.

Liberal groups were outspent, is it possible they could have been outspent by even more? We dont know.
 
This is fairly comical, isn't it? The inspector general is asked to run an audit to determine if conservative groups are being targeted. Turns out they are. Turns out liberal groups are targeted, too, but to what extent we don't know because the IG wasn't asked to audit focus on liberal groups.

In other words, there really isn't any story here except for conspiracy theorists that don't need facts to come to conclusions.
 
This is fairly comical, isn't it? The inspector
general is asked to run an audit to determine if conservative groups are being targeted. Turns out they are. Turns out liberal groups are targeted, too, but to what extent we don't know because the IG wasn't asked to audit focus on liberal groups.

In other words, there really isn't any story here except for conspiracy theorists that don't need facts to come to conclusions.

Thats were your'e wrong.

Conservative groups were passed on to Washington for closer inspection that lasted years, Liberal groups were passed through and given their status.

It's called " reading ", you should try it sometime.
 
Conservative groups were passed on to Washington for closer inspection that lasted years, Liberal groups were passed through and given their status.

Unfortunately, you don't have any proof of this.
 
It's the only damn 501c4 group to be denied.
There aren't any others. I'm sure 2+2=4 would be a talking point if a republican said it was five.

Not that any facts, reality, or critical thinking will ever permeate your bubble.

The result of the IRS " investigating" itself showed the targeting was wide spread and lasted longer and was a direct contradiction to the initial statements of Lois Lerner.

Who...pleaded the Fifth.

But no one did anything wrong.

Are you purposely being obtuse or are you so afflicted that you actually believe this was all on the up and up ?

As it turns out the truth is just the opposite from Lerners initial claims.

There was a DOMA list that included " progressive" and " Occupy " but Washington was the one who held back Conservative 501s for further " review", not low level agents in Cinci.

Why do you think Cummings declared this solved ?

He knows its bad and he wants it to go away

And if those 501's never deserved the status, why are they suddenly being approved in mass ?

Your'e not suppoed to cover for a corrupt administration, your'e supposed to demand accountabillity.
 
There was a DOMA list that included " progressive" and " Occupy " but Washington was the one who held back Conservative 501s for further " review", not low level agents in Cinci.

Please provide some substantiation for this claim.
 
Please provide some substantiation for this claim.

Why, none of you have.

Your'e going to continue to ignore the blatant discrepencies and contradictions that the IRS has produced since Lois Lerner planted the question that revealed all of this.

You'll ignore something that if happened under a Republica. President would have resulted in his removal by now.

The hypocrisy is just astounding.
 
Why, none of you have.

lol, you're the one making the claim, not me. I don't have to provide anything. You claimed that "Washington was the one who held back Conservative 501's". Provide some support for your claim.
 
Khayembii Communique;1061976527 said:
lol, you're the one making the claim, not me. I don't have to provide anything. You claimed that "Washington was the one who held back Conservative 501's". Provide some support for your claim.

Just think, if the Democrats had the House, Benghazi would be about a " video" and the IRS scandal would have been about a couple of nameless, faceless front line employees in Cinci, that were fired immediately ( but never were ).

Sorry, the left lies.
 
Okay, so you have no support for your claim, or you aren't willing to provide it and support your argument, so you really have no basis on which to argue anything in this thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom