Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 139
  1. #31
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    NW OHIO
    Posts
    1,677

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by falcon_view View Post
    No troll, just been away for a while, check to see the thread I started!!!!! And check when I joined. Now I have been gone for a while but it looks like the time I left I would have had more posts than you. So if I am a troll you would be more of a troll.
    Trolling has nothing to do with number of posts. It is about posting things that are intended to get a reaction for the enjoyment in getting some one else's goat. Sure, many trolls create alt accounts to do this, but it is not mandatory. Your statement describing your actions and intent here fit. Trollish behavior to a T.

    I quit posting here for a long time and tend to lurk and read and ingest for the most part so we could both equally make the "if I've stayed more active...." claim. That is about as valid as me saying I am not trolling because I have TLR Bullfrog tag and an entry in the "You must read before posting sticky." None of these things make my behavior trolling or not trolling any more than your logically flawed and presumptive "Superior post count".

    I should have been a bit choosier in my words. Sorry if I offended you. The post I quoted is a mirror of trollish behavior, at least as I understand it. It was not intended to say you yourself were a troll, although I can see where you would read it that way.

    Anyways, I have digressed and side tracked too much already and have failed to add anything relevant to this thread, Apologies gents, carry on with your daily dysfunction
    Last edited by taman; 05-15-2013 at 09:46 AM.
    Derailing topics with varied sidetracks since 2003.

  2. #32
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,761

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    As to the definition of trolling the in many past treads I have been trolled to death by regulators. So some pay back with a message was in order when I see these same regulators going off the deep end. I really tried to be nice in the beginning but got handed a tinfoil hat. If I said anything that didn't fall within their mindset I got trolled. In other words I learned from the regulators here. I just figured if that is the way to play the game, I can be just as good at it. Dysfunction junction.

  3. #33
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    So, do you have any point to make about the IRS vs. Tea Party scandal? Other than your absurd allegation that the IRS commissioner was a super secret Bush spy, which is something that the likes of the White House and MSNBC aren't even claiming.

  4. #34
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    38
    Posts
    6,499

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    You know what I have discovered about this "scandal?" Conservatives don't like it when they get profiled

    I'll never defend the IRS....I don't know anyone who ever would, ever.

    But the IRS going after people who have made it their main political focus to avoid paying taxes? Well that is akin to cops going after fancy fast red sports cars on the highway. It's not fair, its probably illegal to admit such behavior, but we all know it happens. To pretend otherwise would be to feign ignorance.

    Fire the people who were behind it and fix it.

  5. #35
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,493

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    From the Supreme Court:

    "The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."

    Its really that simple.

    Avoid, don't evade... sound advice.

  6. #36
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    From the Supreme Court:

    "The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."

    Its really that simple.

    Avoid, don't evade... sound advice.
    Yeah, I wish I had that quote when people were bitching about Mitt Romney and his account or whatever in the Grand Cayman.

    Tax evasion is illegal.
    Tax avoidance is legal and probably smart. Have a 401(k)? Congratulations, you're avoiding taxes.

  7. #37
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,427

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Of course more will come out complaining in spite of crossing the line...
    Franklin Graham: IRS targeted us, too
    Franklin Graham, the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the family’s international humanitarian organization Samaritan’s Purse, said that the IRS notified the organizations in September that it was conducting a “review” of their activities for tax year 2010.
    With the IRS admitting it gave extra scrutiny to conservative political organizations, Graham says he now believes that the review was part of an Obama administration effort of “targeting and attempting to intimidate us.”

    (PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

    The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association urging of voters to back “candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel” during last year’s presidential race was the reason why IRS agents visited the North Carolina offices of both Graham groups, the letter accuses.

    “While these audits not only wasted taxpayer money, they wasted money contributed by donors for ministry purposes as we had to spend precious resources servicing the IRS agents in our offices,” Graham wrote in the letter, which was shared with POLITICO. “I believe that someone in the administration was targeting and attempting to intimidate us. This is morally wrong and unethical – indeed some would call it ‘un-American.”
    The IRS review, which Graham wrote involved an IRS agent visiting the two agencies last October, followed the Billy Graham ministry publishing newspaper ads in North Carolina backing a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The amendment passed in May.
    Like it or not, when a tax-exempt organization spends money backing legislation, I believe it should be investigated for adherence to tax codes.

    I also believe this should be uniform and if not, IRS officials should be fired and or prosecuted.

    This was a similar point that the New York Times made in a recent OdEd that the WSJ ridiculed in one of theirs.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.


  8. #38
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,493

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Like it or not, when a tax-exempt organization spends money backing legislation, I believe it should be investigated for adherence to tax codes.

    I also believe this should be uniform and if not, IRS officials should be fired and or prosecuted.
    Like it or not, they were audited and kept their exempt status. Are you suggesting the audit wasn't thorough enough?

    Certainly, the Graham clan have plenty of legal methods to buy political ads. Its not as if they're short on funds or connections. I guess you could quibble over what fund the money came from... but it would help to know first.

    I wonder if Media Matters was ever audited. Or ACORN and its many tentacled off-shoots.

  9. #39
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    I wonder if Media Matters was ever audited. Or ACORN and its many tentacled off-shoots.
    Could you imagine if Planned Parenthood was audited every year George W. Bush was president? Yikes.

  10. #40
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,427

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Like it or not, they were audited and kept their exempt status. Are you suggesting the audit wasn't thorough enough?

    Certainly, the Graham clan have plenty of legal methods to buy political ads. Its not as if they're short on funds or connections. I guess you could quibble over what fund the money came from... but it would help to know first.

    I wonder if Media Matters was ever audited. Or ACORN and its many tentacled off-shoots.
    There you go again, trying to find some flaw by association and what I haven't said without a single response to the actual word I did.

    Graham religious ministry isn't set up to insert political ads. Media Matters doesn't place political ads, and the target of the right, Acorn-now gone-didn't place anything other than employment ads. It seems you ignore my point entirely with your need to offer organizations different that your views as examples.


    What is your point and opinion on the actual topic, dutch?

    I'm clear with mine. Non-profits that are set up as educational or religious should not tamper with legislative actions/elections and the IRS, if operating with impartial oversight and equal standing regardless of political spectrum.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.


  11. #41
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    There you go again, trying to find some flaw by association and what I haven't said without a single response to the actual word I did.

    Graham religious ministry isn't set up to insert political ads. Media Matters doesn't place political ads, and the target of the right, Acorn-now gone-didn't place anything other than employment ads. It seems you ignore my point entirely with your need to offer organizations different that your views as examples.


    What is your point and opinion on the actual topic, dutch?

    I'm clear with mine. Non-profits that are set up as educational or religious should not tamper with legislative actions/elections and the IRS, if operating with impartial oversight and equal standing regardless of political spectrum.
    There you go, trying to limit free speech.

  12. #42
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,427

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    Could you imagine if Planned Parenthood was audited every year George W. Bush was president? Yikes.
    Spare me please. Let's try some real examples and see where the conversation goes...
    When the IRS targeted liberals
    While few are defending the Internal Revenue Service for targeting some 300 conservative groups, there are two critical pieces of context missing from the conventional wisdom on the “scandal.” First, at least from what we know so far, the groups were not targeted in a political vendetta — but rather were executing a makeshift enforcement test (an ugly one, mind you) for IRS employees tasked with separating political groups not allowed to claim tax-exempt status, from bona fide social welfare organizations. Employees are given almost zero official guidance on how to do that, so they went after Tea Party groups because those seemed like they might be political. Keep in mind, the commissioner of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.

    The second is that while this is the first time this kind of thing has become a national scandal, it’s not the first time such activity has occurred.

    “I wish there was more GOP interest when I raised the same issue during the Bush administration, where they audited a progressive church in my district in what look liked a very selective way,” California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on MSNBC Monday. “I found only one Republican, [North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones], that would join me in calling for an investigation during the Bush administration. I’m glad now that the GOP has found interest in this issue and it ought to be a bipartisan concern.”

    The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.

    The church, which said progressive activism was in its “DNA,” hired a powerful Washington lawyer and enlisted the help of Schiff, who met with the commissioner of the IRS twice and called for a Government Accountability Office investigation, saying the IRS audit violated the First Amendment and was unduly targeting a political opponent of the Bush administration. “My client is very concerned that the close coordination undertaken by the IRS allowed partisan political concerns to direct the course of the All Saints examination,” church attorney Marcus Owens, who is widely considered one of the country’s leading experts on this area of the law, said at the time. In 2007, the IRS closed the case, decreeing that the church violated rules preventing political intervention, but it did not revoke its nonprofit status.


    And while All Saints came under the gun, conservative churches across the country were helping to mobilize voters for Bush with little oversight. In 2006, citing the precedent of All Saints, “a group of religious leaders accused the Internal Revenue Service yesterday of playing politics by ignoring its complaint that two large churches in Ohio are engaging in what it says are political activities, in violation of the tax code,” the New York Times reported at the time. The churches essentially campaigned for a Republican gubernatorial candidate, they alleged, and even flew him on one of their planes.

    Meanwhile, Citizens for Ethics in Washington filed two ethics complaints against a church in Minnesota. “You know we can’t publicly endorse as a church and would not for any candidate, but I can tell you personally that I’m going to vote for Michele Bachmann,” pastor Mac Hammond of the Living Word Christian Center in Minnesota said in 2006 before welcoming her to the church. The IRS opened an audit into the church, but it went nowhere after the church appealed the audit on a technicality.

    And it wasn’t just churches. In 2004, the IRS went after the NAACP, auditing the nation’s oldest civil rights group after its chairman criticized President Bush for being the first sitting president since Herbert Hoover not to address the organization. “They are saying if you criticize the president we are going to take your tax exemption away from you,” then-chairman Julian Bond said. “It’s pretty obvious that the complainant was someone who doesn’t believe George Bush should be criticized, and it’s obvious of their response that the IRS believes this, too.”

    In a letter to the IRS, Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel, Pete Stark and John Conyers wrote: “It is obvious that the timing of this IRS examination is nothing more than an effort to intimidate the members of the NAACP, and the communities the organization represents, in their get-out-the-vote effort nationwide.”

    Then, in 2006, the Wall Street Journal broke the story of a how a little-known pressure group called Public Interest Watch — which received 97 percent of its funds from Exxon Mobile one year — managed to get the IRS to open an investigation into Greenpeace. Greenpeace had labeled Exxon Mobil the “No. 1 climate criminal.” The IRS acknowledged its audit was initiated by Public Interest Watch and threatened to revoke Greenpeace’s tax-exempt status, but closed the investigation three months later.

    As the Journal reporter, Steve Stecklow, later said in an interview, “This comes against a backdrop where a number of conservative groups have been attacking nonprofits and NGOs over their tax-exempt status. There have been hearings on Capitol Hill. There have been a number of conservative groups in Washington who have been quite critical.”

    Indeed, the year before that, the Senate held a hearing on nonprofits’ political activity. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, the then-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the IRS needed better enforcement, but also “legislative changes” to better define the lines between politics and social welfare, since they had not been updated in “a generation.” Unfortunately, neither Congress nor the IRS has defined 501(c)4′s sufficiently to this day, leaving the door open for IRS auditors to make up their own, discriminatory rules.

    Those cases mostly involved 501(c)3 organizations, which live in a different section of the tax code for real charities like hospitals and schools. The rules are much stronger and better developed for (c)3′s, in part because they’ve been around longer. But with “social welfare” (c)4 groups, the kind of political activity we saw in 2010 and 2012 is so unprecedented that you get cases like Emerge America, a progressive nonprofit that trains Democratic female candidates for public office. The group has chapters across the country, but in 2011, chapters in Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada were denied 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. Leaders called the situation “bizarre” because in the five years Nevada had waited for approval, the Kentucky chapter was approved, only for the other three to be denied.

    A former IRS official told the New York Times that probably meant the applications were sent to different offices, which use slightly different standards. Different offices within the same organization that are supposed to impose the exact same rules in a consistent manner have such uneven conceptions of where to draw the line at a political group, that they can approve one organization and then deny its twin in a different state.

    All of these stories suggest that while concern with the IRS posture toward conservative groups now may be merited, to fully understand the situation requires a bit of context and history.
    Please remember my point is simple. Uniform standards. Any thing else won't do. Open your eyes to reality and stop the sniping. It happened under Bush.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.


  13. #43
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Uniform standards. Any thing else won't do.
    Yeah, Planned Parenthood and unions can spew all the left-wing crap they want and enjoy tax-exempt status, but religious groups that spew right-wing crap better shut the hell up, in otoc's world.

  14. #44
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,427

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    There you go, trying to limit free speech.
    No, getting tax breaks for education or religious purposes should be defined as that. Meddling with elections shouldn't be prevented. There should be a cost associated with it.

    Are political ads free? Does the fact that they aren't limit free speech?
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.


  15. #45
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,427

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    Yeah, Planned Parenthood and unions can spew all the left-wing crap they want and enjoy tax-exempt status, but religious groups that spew right-wing crap better shut the hell up, in otoc's world.
    Do you have a comprehension problem with things I write? Uniform standards. What do you think that means. One sided?
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •