What's new
By:

IRS Targeting Right Wing Groups

You're wrong. Its just not worth the time explain to explain all the wrong points you made.
I'll think about going back and answering all your wrong points, when you go back and answer all the unanswered questions I've already posed to you.
Good day sir!
 
MoreFeasts said:
Mr. Colbert is an expert in nonprofit tax law ? awesome.
Click to expand...

Actually, he hired someone for that. There were several episodes over an extended period of time.

At this point, I just have to mention this: your argumentation is worse than Beantown and worse than PearlWatson. It just may be the worst I've ever seen on this board.
 
MoreFeasts said:
This is not proof. Your evidence does not prove what you think it proves.
Again, quote the statement that you think is proof.

The press makes a sensationalist buzz leading to an unsupported false conclusion, and your proof is the media buzz? awesome.
Click to expand...

Proof is for mathematicians and alcohol. In the real world, you can only have evidence.

I'll trust media buzz over empty accusations on a message board.
 
From the wiki reference provided by 1B

"The law allows Section 501(c)(4) organizations to self-declare and hold themselves out as tax-exempt; they do not have to obtain any approval from the Internal Revenue Service."
 
Brow, If you weren't just throwing crap on a wall, you would quote the part of your reference you think proves your point, instead of making me have to guess which part of the crap is the evidence that I am supposed to respond to.
 
https://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2159983

States that the IRS went after group's based on policy stances and not political activity. Also talks about conservative groups applications being held in suspense while liberal groups applications were given a pass. If true it shows this was about politics and not enforcing IRS law in a fair evenhanded way.
 
It is brief ,long on sensationalistic conclusions, short on data or analysis.
Are you sure they are comparing apples to apples?
Just because one liberal group got approval quickly does not mean that all did.
Maybe the tiny sample of approvals had better applications.
Maybe they had simpler organizations.
Maybe they did not have names, activities, materials, or purposes as political in nature as the Tea Party, or associations with groups that habitually involved themselves in campaigning like the Tea Party does, contrary to the spirit of the classification, as described in 1Bs reference on 501(c)(4)s.
Maybe the approvals were made by a different IRS agent.
 
MoreFeasts said:
It is brief ,long on sensationalistic conclusions, short on data or analysis.
Are you sure they are comparing apples to apples?
Just because one liberal group got approval quickly does not mean that all did.
Maybe the tiny sample of approvals had better applications.
Maybe they had simpler organizations.
Maybe they did not have names, activities, materials, or purposes as political in nature as the Tea Party, or associations with groups that habitually involved themselves in campaigning like the Tea Party does, contrary to the spirit of the classification, as described in 1Bs reference on 501(c)(4)s.
Maybe the approvals were made by a different IRS agent.
Click to expand...

Go read the OIG report in regards to the pass that liberal groups got.
 
MoreFeasts said:
Why? Do they equate the word Progressive being the mirror image of the word Tea Party?
Click to expand...

Can you show me where I ever said progressive?

Also no it is not my interpretation, That is what the report says. Now is the report true, That's the question.
 
MoreFeasts said:
It did not state that all conservative groups apps were held in suspense.
It did not state that no liberal apps were held in suspense.
It did not make a detailed analysis of the merits of any of the applications.
Click to expand...

I never said all either.
 
The real story here is that the Tea Party should not be approved for this classification, and they are bullying the IRS into letting them abuse the system. The Tea Party Groups can operate as a nonprofit without the IRS approval if they are so sure that their intentions are pure. I think that the Tea Parties are social welfare organizations in name only, but actually campaign organizations, from my observations of them. Therefore, their applications should not only be delayed , but denied.

Congress should just close this grey area loophole, but both parties benefit from a messy situation, and want to keep the campaign coffers full, but hook or by crook.
 
Last edited:
I really have believed in Obama the man while second-guessing some of his decisions as The Executive. This is the first thing I can think of that has shaken my opinion substantially. I'm really disappointed.

For the sake of all of us I sure hope something ACTUALLY happens in the government sometime soon. Something good, obviously.
 
Stoked said:
Can you show me where I ever said progressive?

Also no it is not my interpretation, That is what the report says. Now is the report true, That's the question.
Click to expand...

If the report is comparing the word Progressive to the words Tea Party, and it is, then the report is flawed.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I really have believed in Obama the man while second-guessing some of his decisions as The Executive. This is the first thing I can think of that has shaken my opinion substantially. I'm really disappointed.

For the sake of all of us I sure hope something ACTUALLY happens in the government sometime soon. Something good, obviously.
Click to expand...
Why?
Where are you getting your information from?
I don't believe that there is any connection between the IRS actions and Obama.
You want the IRS to be independent , don't you? Are you upset that Obama is failing to exert more control over IRS actions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top