8
   

Tea Party & patriot groups

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 08:39 am
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

Your facts, as is your mind, full of distortions. The IRS ADMITTED to targeting conservative groups. And you buy into the bullshit from MSNBC et al..

You are just another partisan fool.

The IRS admitted targeting groups with certain names as a shortcut to find groups that might be violating the tax exempt requirements. Those groups made up only 25% of the total groups the IRS required to show more information.

That means the IRS didn't target only conservative groups. It only means they used a criteria that showed bias in selecting some of the groups to inquire further about.
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 08:57 am
@parados,
Stop trying to spin this nonsense and defending the actions of the IRS. EVERY APPLICATION requires more information. EVERY ONE OF THEM !!!!!

The IRS ADMITTED it went out of their way to target these groups and ask for MORE INFORMATION than is normally required.

Why did it happen and who told these "low level" folks to do it?

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 09:07 am
@woiyo,
A few folks in this forum seem to be auditioning for "Democratic Strategists" positions. You know, the people who show up on cable news shows to parse words and twist the truth into a pretzel, based on the Talking Points of the Day.
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 09:16 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I ask, Did Organizing for Action get asked the SAME EXACT questions as these folks?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 12:13 pm
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

Stop trying to spin this nonsense and defending the actions of the IRS. EVERY APPLICATION requires more information. EVERY ONE OF THEM !!!!!

The IRS ADMITTED it went out of their way to target these groups and ask for MORE INFORMATION than is normally required.

Why did it happen and who told these "low level" folks to do it?



Let's see who's spinning...
Quote:

70 percent of all closed applications for tax-exempt status were approved
during an initial review with little or no additional information from the organizations.

So.. your EVERYONE is complete nonsense and just spin.

The IG report states that 298 organizations were asked more questions because of possible political activity. Of those 298 organizations only 72 were targeted because they had Tea Party in their name. 24 others were targeted for names specified in a BOLO.

Of 2,051 applications that were not asked for additional info, the IG report estimates only 44 were not accurately identified as being possibly political.

Of 2,459 applications that were asked for additional info, 144 weren't accurately identified as being possibly political.

And finally this from the IG report....
Quote:
We reviewed all 298 applications that had been identified as potential
political cases as of May 31, 2012. In the majority of cases, we agreed that the
applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention.



I guess the facts don't matter if you don't like the reason for the targeting.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 03:44 pm
Could this be a reason to target all political groups? It sure looks like a reason to target some.

0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 07:54 am
@parados,
No. I do not like the reason for anyone to be targeted. You apparently see nothing going on. That is why you are a lapdog for the Democrats and a useful idiot to their cause. They need people like you.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 07:58 am
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

No. I do not like the reason for anyone to be targeted. You apparently see nothing going on. That is why you are a lapdog for the Democrats and a useful idiot to their cause. They need people like you.

WTF? So you think any group should be automatically given tax exempt status even if they are not eligible? That is just idiotic but conservative I guess. Who needs to follow the law? No one it seems according to you.
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 08:26 am
@parados,
That is not what I said lapdog. To continue with you is pointless. Rollover Rover.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 09:04 am
@woiyo,
Let me repeat THIS from the IG report.

Quote:
We reviewed all 298 applications that had been identified as potential
political cases as of May 31, 2012. In the majority of cases, we agreed that the
applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention.



The name may have been a no no but the targeting was clearly proper based on their applications indicating significant political campaign intervention.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 10:17 am
@parados,
You got him! He went into insult mode and that means he cant come up with an intelligent comeback.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 11:03 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
. . . That is just idiotic but conservative I guess. Who needs to follow the law? . . .
Following the law IS CONSERVATIVE, with reference to that law.
Varying from it is liberal, as to it.
Varying from ANYTHING is liberal, as to it.

MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 11:10 am
Let's get real here. Tea Party groups were formed specifically for political purposes, for opposition to Obama's policies. They weren't lformed for social good, they weren't formed to hold teas with little sandwiches and cookies on the village green. What social good have they done? The name itself is a red flag that politics is probably going on here, and is perfectly appropriate for scrutiny.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 11:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Self-inflicted stupidity is the intellectual equivalent of shooting one's self in the foot.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 01:16 pm
@MontereyJack,
No different I suppose than Organizing for America and Moveon.Org. I suppose you will tell me they are NOT political.

I wonder if they got asked the same questions?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 01:43 pm
@woiyo,
Based on the IG report, if they applied for tax exempt status in the same time period, it is highly likely that they were asked questions and required to supply more documents.
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 01:52 pm
@parados,
Yea? Organizing for America was formed in January 2009. You actually want me to believe the IRS would "hassle" the sitting Presidents "Charity"?

Stop being a lapdog, Rover and open your eyes.

If you want to argue that ALL 501 (c) 4 applicants should be questioned thoroughly, I could agree as long a ALL 2,000 applicants are treated the same way and asked the same questions. In this case they were not and I do not trust the IG's report. I do not trust internal investigation of Government agencies.
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 01:52 pm
@parados,
Yea? Organizing for America was formed in January 2009. You actually want me to believe the IRS would "hassle" the sitting Presidents "Charity"?

Stop being a lapdog, Rover and open your eyes.

If you want to argue that ALL 501 (c) 4 applicants should be questioned thoroughly, I could agree as long a ALL 2,000 applicants are treated the same way and asked the same questions. In this case they were not and I do not trust the IG's report. I do not trust internal investigation of Government agencies.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 02:09 pm
@woiyo,
78% of those held up were NOT conservative orgs, so your assertion is abit unsecured.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 02:17 pm
@woiyo,
You want us to believe you have any evidence to support your allegation? Because clearly you don't.

According to the IG report, the majority of political based groups that applied were referred for further questioning. Unless you want to argue that Conservative organizations make up 80% of the 501 C 4s that are political your argument is idiotic and without any basis other than your political ax that you feel you can grind without any facts.
 

Related Topics

IRS - Beware - Discussion by PUNKEY
IRS Abuse Question - Discussion by Finn dAbuzz
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 11:49:29