Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 139
  1. #46
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    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?
    Except the Supreme Court has ruled that political activity is free speech, and so, you're implying that religious groups should lose their tax exempt status for exercising free speech aka political activity.

  2. #47
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Do you have a comprehension problem with things I write? Uniform standards. What do you think that means. One sided?
    Then why did you say:

    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.
    Political activity = free speech, according to the supreme court. You can't say religious groups shouldn't meddle in elections.

  3. #48
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    I'll save you the trouble, otoc, because you're probably digging through Supreme Court decisions trying to find a flaw in my argument.

    Religious groups are more likely to support right-wing political positions, and you know it.

    I absolutely agree the IRS should use the same standards when determining non-profit status.

    But your notion that non-profit religious groups should be barred from political activity is ridiculous. What if, in your world, where religious and educational non-profits were barred from political activity, somebody sued and tried to say that teachers unions were 'educational groups' and shouldn't be petitioning for political legislation or whatnot?

  4. #49
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,515

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    Except the Supreme Court has ruled that political activity is free speech, and so, you're implying that religious groups should lose their tax exempt status for exercising free speech aka political activity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    Then why did you say:



    Political activity = free speech, according to the supreme court. You can't say religious groups shouldn't meddle in elections.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    I'll save you the trouble, otoc, because you're probably digging through Supreme Court decisions trying to find a flaw in my argument.

    Religious groups are more likely to support right-wing political positions, and you know it.

    I absolutely agree the IRS should use the same standards when determining non-profit status.

    But your notion that non-profit religious groups should be barred from political activity is ridiculous. What if, in your world, where religious and educational non-profits were barred from political activity, somebody sued and tried to say that teachers unions were 'educational groups' and shouldn't be petitioning for political legislation or whatnot?


    Yes, I expressed an opinion, and I guess you could call it free speech. How about that?

    Bringing in the Citizens United ruling, if that is what you mean allowed the creation of Super Pacs and reversed previous rulings and laws. Graham is not a Super Pac and does not have to reveal the names of those making donations to him. The same applies to a liberal cause.

    I feel the laws should be simplified, clearly stated so the IRS has guidelines to operate under beyond the vague ones that exist and quite frankly feel that any organization operating under the education and religious non-profit should stick to being religious and educational. More so, the corporations as an individual did more to stifle free speech for individuals (while operating under a different set of rules than educational and religious, where donors have to be identified). I'm mentioning that because you enlarged the conversation beyond what I began with.

    But since you brought this up, I don't believe a business owner deserves 2 voices. One as an individual and one as a business entity to my one. Further, the ruling did exactly what we feared it would do. Make the cost of this last election greater than ever, raising the threshold above what individuals could do alone. It's like you have to join an asshat organization, be it left or right, to have equal standing.

    So you can thank scotus for allowing those vile unions to have a greater voice. I don't agree they should. I do think, whatever it is, it should be uniform. And that whatever is to simplified and obstruct organizations from meddling with our elections so that individuals like you and I are free to utilize our voices for whatever side of the equation.

    Then again, I believe political ads over the airwaves and internet should be free.

    Enlarging my original point beyond Graham. If Graham, the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Planned Parenthood, AARP, all Unions (who Scotus ruled against in terms of charging non-members in union shops or members not agreeing to what the Union was pushing politically), want to be religious and educational, fine. Place OpEds and communicate that to their members.

    Political ads are different to me.

    I think, my opinion, my right to free expression of thought, free speech, is that when their concept is advertised to sway elections or legislative votes they cross the line and gain more power than you or I have as individuals.

    Nice to see we at least agree on one thing. That is good. I appreciate the time and thought you spent.
    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.


  5. #50
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,490

    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 the liberals world.
    Thought this fit even better.

  6. #51
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,577

    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.
    So let me get this straight. When you bring up Billy Graham out of the blue, there's no association to anything other than the narrow focus of your concern that he might have used un-taxed dollars to buy ads. And somehow, posters who follow your comments are not allowed to make any associations to what you put down here, right?

    Wrong.

    We're free to make any damned associations we feel like.

    Graham religious ministry isn't set up to insert political ads.
    Like I said before you cried over associations, he has the means to buy ads legally. Whether he did or not, you haven't proven. The IRS checked him out and ther ministry is still doin' its thing.

    Media Matters doesn't place political ads.
    Media Matters is nothing BUT a big political advertisement. That's all they are. Nothing else.

    What is your point and opinion on the actual topic, dutch?
    Obviously, its beyond your ability to grasp.

    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.
    I probably have a different view on this than you think, but you put the Graham carrot out there... "tamper" with?

    More semantics problems for you.

    1
    : to carry on underhand or improper negotiations (as by bribery)
    2
    a : to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse —used with with <did not want to tamper with tradition>
    b : to try foolish or dangerous experiments —used with with
    c : to render something harmful or dangerous by altering its structure or composition <was charged with tampering with consumer products>

    How does an advertisement fit the definition of "tampering with an election?"
    Last edited by Dutchcedar; 05-15-2013 at 02:54 PM. Reason: typo

  7. #52
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    38
    Posts
    6,499

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    The IRS "scandal" — all smoke, no fire

    The media has gone into high boil over the actions of a handful of IRS employees in Cincinnati. The IRS is deliberately targeting political groups! They even admit it! Can impeachment be far behind?

    Next step, tie this to Benghazi and any other fact-free psuedo-scandal close at hand. Step two, moan about the general incompetence and corruption of government. Step three, demand scalps — but not before there's time to spin out a good half dozen Sunday talk show seasons on Taxgazi, or Tax and Furious, or whatever brand the pundits decide has the most snap.

    You know this one must be the real deal, because every news channel, newspaper, local anchor, radio nutjob, and water cooler wag is singing the same tune. Hell, even Jon Stewart is on step two.

    There's just one minor problem: the exact purpose of the IRS office in question IS to look at political groups. Specifically, to weed out purely political groups that promote or oppose candidates from obtaining a tax status that's supposed to go to nonprofit educational organizations. The crime of the IRS agents in Cincinnati? They were doing their job.

    But what about the specific targeting of Tea Party groups? Doesn't that show that this was all just a witch hunt against groups with right wing ideologies? Uh, no. It came up at exactly the time the office was getting flooded with a bunch of hastily prepared applications spewing from the Tea Party's messy birth. The edict went out expressly because the office was being flooded with a bunch of hastily prepared, clearly political, applications all using very similar terms. In fact, the entire group of IRS employees in question was created to address the influx of possibly political applications. If the office had suddenly received a hundred applications for exempt status all claiming to be from the Sierra Club, wouldn't you want them to pay a bit more attention? I would. What if those applications had all been from groups using Muslim Brotherhood in their titles? Would the same pundits still be on the air screaming about the IRS getting all political?

    Behind all this are the staggering numbers. Out of thousands of applications, only a handful were rejected. You know what happens while a nonprofit organization is waiting to get this approval? They get to operate as a nonprofit organization. The harm caused by this action is exactly zero, and exactly no groups have sued the IRS in response to their rejection. They simply amended the application and tried again.

    These are agents doing their job. They responded to an unusual influx of groups with political language in their applications all going after a designation that excludes groups that carry out many political actions.

    The only scandal here is that this is being reported as if the IRS did something wrong in injecting itself into politics. The law requires that the IRS inject itself into politics. Don't like it? Change the law. Don't attack the people trying to enforce it.

  8. #53
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,515

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    So let me get this straight. When you bring up Billy Graham out of the blue, there's no association to anything other than the narrow focus of your concern that he might have used un-taxed dollars to buy ads. And somehow, posters who follow your comments are not allowed to make any associations to what you put down here, right?

    Wrong.

    We're free to make any damned associations we feel like.



    Like I said before you cried over associations, he has the means to buy ads legally. Whether he did or not, you haven't proven. The IRS checked him out and ther ministry is still doin' its thing.



    Media Matters is nothing BUT a big political advertisement. That's all they are. Nothing else.



    Obviously, its beyond your ability to grasp.



    I probably have a different view on this than you think, but you put the Graham carrot out there... "tamper" with?

    More semantics problems for you.

    1
    : to carry on underhand or improper negotiations (as by bribery)
    2
    a : to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse —used with with <did not want to tamper with tradition>
    b : to try foolish or dangerous experiments —used with with
    c : to render something harmful or dangerous by altering its structure or composition <was charged with tampering with consumer products>

    How does an advertisement fit the definition of "tampering with an election?"
    Obviously your opinion is my opinion is beyond my ability to grasp and yours is probably different. Fine. Go pick an argument with someone looking to argue.
    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.


  9. #54
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,577

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Go pick an argument with someone looking to argue.
    When your schtick runs out of gas, debate = argument.

    We've seen it many times, otoc.

  10. #55
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,515

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    When your schtick runs out of gas, debate = argument.

    We've seen it many times, otoc.
    Dutch with all respect, debate is expressing a viewpoint other than "probably different" and not continually expressing your opinion of me as lame, or other many disses you dish like I don't get it while your unmentioned one does apparently make sense to you. Debate is More like the discussion Kevin and I had where I elaborated my opinion as did he. Something you cant seem to manage. Stop your schtick or start a new thread or fight alone. Once again I've bitten and explained myself to this childish attempt by you. Have your last word.
    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. #56
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    I guess the Obama Defense Squad has to pretend like this is no big deal, even when the White House admits they (IE: the government) did something wrong.

  12. #57
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,515

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    I guess the Obama Defense Squad has to pretend like this is no big deal, even when the White House admits they (IE: the government) did something wrong.
    I tend to side with you on this one after reading this:
    Obama: Acting IRS chief Steven Miller resigns
    President Barack Obama announced Wednesday that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had requested and accepted the resignation of Steven Miller, the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.

    Miller’s resignation is the administration’s first major action in response to the revelation that IRS employees were targeting politically conservative groups for additional scrutiny when applying for tax-exempt status — and in an East Room statement, Obama promised more change to come

    The IRS’s conduct was “inexcusable” and an “outrage,” Obama said. But, he added, “the good news is, it’s fixable.”

    Obama pledged to “do everything in my power to make sure nothing like this happens again” by holding accountable those involved in the wrongdoing, by instituting new safeguards, and by “making sure that the law is applied as it should be in a fair and impartial way.”

    The White House, he said, will work with Congress to make sure that happens.

    After Obama spoke, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement that if Obama “is as concerned about this issue as he claims, he’ll work openly and transparently with Congress to get to the bottom of the scandal — no stonewalling, no half-answers, no withholding of witnesses.”

    Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who plans to hold a hearing on the issue next week, said on CNN that Obama “set exactly the right tone” and took “an extremely good first step” in asking Miller to step down. “We very much take him at his word that he wants to be open and transparent” in moving ahead on the issue.

    Obama spoke soon after the IRS began defending some of its senior leadership, releasing a statement Wednesday saying that its chief counsel, William Wilkins, was not among those who participated in a meeting of agency employees to discuss the targeting of conservative groups. The inspector general’s report suggested that a “chief counsel” had been at an Aug. 4, 2011, meeting on the issue, but the IRS said that the lawyers who attended were actually “several layers below Wilkins.”

    Miller, meanwhile, sent an email to IRS employees confirming his departure, which he said will come in early June. The agency, he said, “will benefit from having a new acting commissioner in place during this challenging period.”

    The leader of the agency since November, Miller said that he realizes “much work needs to be done to restore faith in the IRS” but also offered an assurance that the “IRS is comprised of incredibly dedicated and hard-working public servants …. I have strong confidence in the IRS leadership team to continue the important work of our agency.”

    Miller’s resignation comes after the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their names faced extra scrutiny when applying for tax exemption. Even after Lois Lerner, the agency’s director of exempt organizations, raised concerns in the summer of 2011 and called for the revision of criteria used to determine when to scrutinize a group’s request, staffers only briefly changed their behavior.

    By early 2012, the report found, workers shifted to target “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and social economic reform/movement.”

    Though a draft of the report had been floating around Washington for days, Obama waited until the official release on Tuesday night to offer an unqualified condemnation, calling the agency’s behavior “intolerable and inexcusable.” In remarks at a press conference on Monday, Obama had qualified his assessment with the conditional “if” news reports on the findings were true. White House press secretary Jay Carney offered the same skepticism in his comments earlier this week.

    Obama also called on Lew to “hold those responsible for these failures accountable” and to implement the recommendations made by the inspector general. Those ideas include requiring better documentation of the reasons why certain groups are chosen for greater scrutiny by the IRS, and for the Treasury Department to provide better guidance and for cases to be resolved quickly.

    The Justice Department and the FBI have launched their own investigations aimed at determining whether IRS employees broke the law. Attorney General Eric Holder announced his department’s probe on Tuesday, just as House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) asked, “Who’s going to jail over this scandal?”

    Holder was asked about the investigation during a Wednesday afternoon hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, while other committees are preparing for their own examinations of the IRS’s behavior.

    The first of at least three congressional hearings on the incident will be held Friday by the House Ways and Means Committee. Miller is due to testify. In addition to Issa’s committee hearing, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has also planned a hearing for next week.
    And before Dutch can give us a single line barb, let's look at what the other side is saying about this development:
    "Fired" Acting IRS Commissioner Was Set To Resign... in June

    —Ace

    Holy shit.

    President Barack Obama has thrown his acting IRS commissioner overboard, making Steven Miller the highest-ranking political casualty thus far in a series of scandals that have swept his administration in recent weeks.
    ...

    'Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting director of the IRS,' Obama said.

    'It’s important,' he added, 'to institute new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward.'

    But in an email to IRS employees, Miller claimed he would only be leaving next month because his assignment would be over.
    The source of Holy Shit? The DailyMail over in the UK...
    Obama fires acting IRS commissioner as pressure grows surrounding political targeting of conservative groups that sought tax-exempt status

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2TS79OmGR
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    Ah, where in the world did they invent the headline that Miller was fired? They didn't have to fire him. He resigned after being asked because of stonewalling Congress with information he knew about but didn't acknowledge.
    Miller was made aware of the agency's targeting of conservative groups in May 2012, according to the IRS, while serving as deputy IRS commissioner. He did not tell Congress about it when he testified before an oversight committee in July despite being questioned on the issue. Miller was named acting IRS commissioner in November.

    From where did they get he was going to step down anyway? Inquiring minds want to know while pointing out the dance around the fact from ACE that Obama acted swiftly, with both an internal and justice/fbi investigation and for most reasonable minded folks this news event has now been ended in terms of adding rage items to Obama's name. DailyMail, sure.
    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. #58
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,490

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Even though the whole IRS going after the Tea Party is obviously a bad thing, the fact that they continue to send out huge refunds to illegal aliens who then send the money straight to Mexico is an even bigger problem imo, and one that screws over every American taxpaying citizen of any political party every day. That was a huge scandal that blew over as fast as it started. If I remember correctly the IRS chief at the time pretty much said there wasn't much they could do about it either!

  14. #59
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    NW OHIO
    Posts
    1,677

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Not sure if I buy this, based only on the fact the source is obviously biased, but.....................

    In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent “Ms. Richards” told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood. Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.
    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/1...fe-groups-too/

    That would be like demanding the United Church of Christ to promise not to teach the Gospel to obtain tax free status.

    If anyone can debunk this, be my guest, I really hope it is not true.
    Derailing topics with varied sidetracks since 2003.

  15. #60
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,577

    Re: IRS vs. The Tea Party

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    From where did they get he was going to step down anyway? Inquiring minds want to know... DailyMail, sure.
    The link to the letter of resignation from the acting IRS commissioner to his staff that explains he was going to step down early next month, is right there in your own post.

Posting Permissions

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