8
   

Tea Party & patriot groups

 
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 07:54 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I wrote it that way since you now live in the gracious south (unless you are in one of the snowbird enclaves of South Beach)
Taar=TIRE (I was spelling it phonetically so you can see the shortcomings of the phonetic system between folks)
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 09:41 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I wrote it that way since you now live in the gracious south (unless you are in one of the snowbird enclaves of South Beach)
Taar=TIRE (I was spelling it phonetically so you can see the shortcomings of the phonetic system between folks)
O, OK. We don't discuss tires much.
I have yet to hear anyone say that here.





David
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Jun, 2013 04:00 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And I suppose you and Parados believe that liberal oriented c-4s are all about social welfare.
Never said that and I wouldn't say that. I think it was rather nice that 75% of the C-4s that had questions asked were not conservative groups with Tea Party in their names.

Quote:

It amazes me that anyone can be so partisan as to dismiss the IRS targeting of groups and individuals based on political viewpoint, because their ox wasn't gored.

Who is being partisan? Perhaps it is you since you are the one attributing beliefs to people.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jun, 2013 04:04 pm
@farmerman,
With these organization, right and left, a difference without distinction. In any case, didn't Planned Parenthood specifically endorse Obama?

Taking refuge in legalese is a big problem today.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 2 Jun, 2013 04:21 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Planned Parenthood isn't a 501 c (4) so I don't understand your point about legalese. The law is the law. When talking about organizations under 501c (4) there really isn't any point in bringing up organizations under other parts of 501 since they are not subject to the same rules.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jun, 2013 04:19 pm
@parados,
No it's a 501 c (3) and has spun off 501 c (4)'s

The "law is the law" is great cover for organizations that find loopholes they can exploit.

The issue is whether organizations with political goals should receive tax-exempt status, not whether or not one who has enough high priced lawyers and government patrons can get away with it.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jun, 2013 09:17 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
What is the political goal of Planned Parenthood?

You do realize an issue is not a candidate, don't you?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 08:39 am
So... the Tea Party groups that were applying for tax exempt status are upset because the IRS asked about their meetings with and vetting of candidates.

Hmmm... isn't the entire point of the tax exempt status that they are NOT political?
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 10:57 am
@parados,
The IRS was doing it's job which is so unusual that it was considered a scandal. Conservatives prefer things to remain the same. Government doing it job is unnatural.
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 12:30 pm
@RABEL222,
I am not surprised you think by selecting mainly conservative groups and "harassing " them is all OK with you . So long as the discrimination and silencing of opinions you may disagree with is going on, you are just OK with it.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 12:58 pm
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:
I am not surprised you think by selecting mainly conservative groups and "harassing " them is all OK with you .
So long as the discrimination and silencing of opinions you may disagree with is going on, you are just OK with it.
There is a war on
between the adherents of LIBERTY, who love the Constitution
for its crippling and strangling of the jurisdiction of government 37 ways,
i.e., the supporters of orthodox Original Americanism, like Barry Goldwater (and me),
and the liberal voice of heavy-handed authority who wish to twist
the power of government into a weapon to rob
the Middle Class n the Rich, for the welfare of the poor.

It is a war between LIBERTY and authority.
The poor want to use the vote to rob the financially successful.
I favor freedom.

It is very much a question of who 's ox is gored,
as distinct from morality or legal propriety.





David
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 01:06 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
What is the political goal of Planned Parenthood?

You do realize an issue is not a candidate, don't you?


http://www.stealthpacs.org/profile.cfm?org_id=2835
Quote:

Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF)

Stated Purpose:
Engages in educational and electoral activity including public education campaigns, grassroots organizing and legislative activity.

Tax Status:
501(c)(4)

Political Orientation:
Democratic

Profile:
September 2004 — Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF), the "political arm" of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, combined with other Planned Parenthood affiliates to spend several million dollars during the last five weeks of the 2000 general election campaign to broadcast two ads criticizing George W. Bush’s record on abortion rights.1

The ads, which were broadcast in seven battleground states, questioned Bush's record on abortion rights in Texas and predicted that Bush would nominate anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court if he were elected.

In the 2002 election cycle, PPAF funded direct mail and telemarketing campaigns supporting pro-choice candidates in several closely contested U.S. House and Senate races. The group distributed more than 200,000 pieces of literature and made 190,000 phone calls supporting Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) against Republican challenger Norm Coleman. The group subsequently distributed 200,000 e-mails supporting Walter Mondale, who became the Democratic nominee after Wellstone died in a plane crash.


What were you saying about "a c-4 can "GET OUT THE VOTE" but it is not supposed to "GET OUT THE VOTE TO SUPPORT THEIR CANDIDATE"??


parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 01:26 pm
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

I am not surprised you think by selecting mainly conservative groups and "harassing " them is all OK with you . So long as the discrimination and silencing of opinions you may disagree with is going on, you are just OK with it.

Mainly conservative groups? Since when is 25% considered "mainly"?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 01:30 pm
@slkshock7,
I wonder why you left this part out slk.


Quote:
Because Planned Parenthood's overall structure includes a 501(c)(4) entity, a 501(c)(3) entity, a federally regulated PAC and a 527 organization, it is difficult to determine which pots of money paid for which ads.3

PACs and 527s are allowed to pay for ads.
If you can tell us exactly what percentage of monies and time for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund were used in politicking then we can have a discussion. If it was more than 10% then I feel they should have their 501c(4) status revoked.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 01:39 pm

FOR THE RECORD:
I see nothing liberal about the concept of reproductive freedom
which is promoted by Planned Parenthood. So far as I can see,
its goal and principles are fully within the freedom protected
n defended by the US Constitution: self defense against intrusive parasites.

I have donated $$$ in support of Planned Parenthood.
If thay hit me up, I might donate again.
( I bet that Barry Goldwater wud have agreed with me,
but I don't know that with certainty. )





David
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 02:44 pm
@parados,
So this commingling of PP funding streams and advertising budgets would seem to be an ideal area for the IRS to audit, however, it seems to have been focused elsewhere for the past few years...


parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 02:52 pm
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

So this commingling of PP funding streams and advertising budgets would seem to be an ideal area for the IRS to audit, however, it seems to have been focused elsewhere for the past few years...




What commingling? You don't seem to understand the simple things. The person reporting has no way of telling where money came from. That doesn't mean the money was mingled. It only means you are making stuff up that wasn't in the story and ignoring other things that were in the story.

According to the story, there was a total of $9 million spent in ads and the PAC got almost $7 million from one donor alone. I hardly think that points to the 501 c (4) spending a lot of money on ads.

By the way, the story is from 2004, prior to the Citizen's United ruling.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jun, 2013 05:09 pm
@woiyo,
If you will follow the facts which have already been posted here, 1/3 of them were conservative the rest were liberal and religious and other organizations. O, I forgot you cant read english unless its by fox news.
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 07:13 am
@RABEL222,
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.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jun, 2013 08:05 am
@woiyo,
Do all conservative posters post insults rather than facts. Your post dident have anything in it to counter my opinion except that I am not smart enough to understand what? 25 to 35% of them were conservative the rest were not.
0 Replies
 
 

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 07/03/2022 at 05:40:32