IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#351
#351
Vol Main said:
What is the evidence that any group was auto denied? You made that claim, so please give me a link. I won't lead a mob against you for using google to obtain information. Some groups took longer to receive their status, because they were chartered for blatant political purposes and should not have received tax deductible status at all.

If you can think of a way the IRS flagged them without using key words, then please tell me. Maybe an airplane drew an arrow in the sky pointing to them. Nah. The IRS is supposed to look at all applicants, so what's the big deal about putting the most obvious self advertised political groups at the top of the pile and holding them back?
Click to expand...

so you want me to prove a negative? Your claim is that they were all flagged the same way which matches absolutely no report on the situation. Unless you have some magic report no one has seen then your assertion holds no water
 
#354
#354
utvolpj said:
so you want me to prove a negative? Your claim is that they were all flagged the same way which matches absolutely no report on the situation. Unless you have some magic report no one has seen then your assertion holds no water
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll accept your argument that the IRS flagged liberal organizations if they saw sky writing pointing an arrow to their headquarters. Oh wait, you didn't say that. Well, what did you say? If the IRS did not use words to flag liberal organizations, what did it use? I won't hold you to it; just take a wild guess.
 
#355
#355
Vol Main said:
The Tea Party actually has its own caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives. In effect, it is a faction of the Republican Party. So, is the IRS supposed to be too ignorant to know that or deliberately negligent by not flagging them?

The Tea Party Caucus returns - Tarini Parti - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...

only if they also included the following:

Blue Dog
Progressive
Black
Hispanic
Asian Pacific
Pacific Islander
Sikh
Bike
Diversity
Innovation
 
#356
#356
Vol Main said:
Okay, I'll accept your argument that the IRS flagged liberal organizations if they saw sky writing pointing an arrow to their headquarters. Oh wait, you didn't say that. Well, what did you say? If the IRS did not use words to flag liberal organizations, what did it use? I won't hold you to it; just take a wild guess.
Click to expand...

crazy idea but maybe their application was reviewed by an actual person before deciding to flag/not flag it

there is zero evidence that liberal groups were targeted in the same manner as the the Tea Party or patriot groups were
 
#357
#357
utvolpj said:
only if they also included the following:

Blue Dog
Progressive
Black
Hispanic
Asian Pacific
Pacific Islander
Sikh
Bike
Diversity
Innovation
Click to expand...

Have you lost your grip?

I'll support flagging Blue Dog. Progressive is very questionable to flag, because it is a social welfare concept. CBS has an article about one group with Progressive in its name being held up for 18 months. The word is also associated with politics, and we know the Republicans oppose progress, so maybe that was reasonable. I'd have to see the charter and the group's material. I do not see the others implying partisan political action.
 
Last edited:
#358
#358
Some things are getting confused in here. 501c4 doesn't mean you can't advocate for political causes. These groups can lobby. They cannot support specific candidates. Sounds like the 1 example of a liberal group denial was specifically preparing candidates.

The line may be blurry but having Tea Party in your name doesn't mean you don't qualify for 501c4. Engaging in specific political activity does.
 
#359
#359
utvolpj said:
you made the claim. Please provide a link if they were truly flagged by a political key word/phrase like "tea Party"

I'm sure some are reviewed to make sure they are worthy but lib groups were not auto-denied based on their group name. If they were we would already have that info
Click to expand...


They weren't auto denied. As far as I know they weren't screened due to name, either.

But the far right literally WANTS to believe at this point that there was political motivation, so that they can try to tag Obama with it, as opposed to just low level incompetence using the names as a proxy for concerns about the fact that such applications had doubled over the period immediately before.

And if that were true, it still seems at odds with the FACT that no Tea Party group had its application denied, whereas we know that a group promoting the Democratic party was, IN FACT, denied.

These FACTS contradict and undermine the theory that the use of the TP name was to go after them out of political motivation. Again, if it were the case, wouldn't you expect some actual denials?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#360
#360
lawgator1 said:
They weren't auto denied. As far as I know they weren't screened due to name, either.

But the far right literally WANTS to believe at this point that there was political motivation, so that they can try to tag Obama with it, as opposed to just low level incompetence using the names as a proxy for concerns about the fact that such applications had doubled over the period immediately before.

And if that were true, it still seems at odds with the FACT that no Tea Party group had its application denied, whereas we know that a group promoting the Democratic party was, IN FACT, denied.

These FACTS contradict and undermine the theory that the use of the TP name was to go after them out of political motivation. Again, if it were the case, wouldn't you expect some actual denials?
Click to expand...
this is ostrich semantics. Stop presuming people here are as stupid as those populating the sites from which you glean your talking points.

On hold was the equivalent of denial, you clown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#361
#361
volinbham said:
Some things are getting confused in here. 501c4 doesn't mean you can't advocate for political causes. These groups can lobby. They cannot support specific candidates. Sounds like the 1 example of a liberal group denial was specifically preparing candidates.

The line may be blurry but having Tea Party in your name doesn't mean you don't qualify for 501c4. Engaging in specificpolitical activity does.
Click to expand...


I think it should mean exactly that. I don't think "social causes" ought to be equated with political ones. Political groups ought to have to do what other political groups do, in terms of the IRS.

By the way, your logic is also faulty because the group that was denied does not promote one single candidate. They offer training to women from one party. Similarly, the TP groups frequently promoted Republicans.

I am not aware of any Tea Party Democrats in Congress. Therefore, your effort to distinguish them on that basis fails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#362
#362
lawgator1 said:
They weren't auto denied. As far as I know they weren't screened due to name, either.

But the far right literally WANTS to believe at this point that there was political motivation, so that they can try to tag Obama with it, as opposed to just low level incompetence using the names as a proxy for concerns about the fact that such applications had doubled over the period immediately before.

And if that were true, it still seems at odds with the FACT that no Tea Party group had its application denied, whereas we know that a group promoting the Democratic party was, IN FACT, denied.

These FACTS contradict and undermine the theory that the use of the TP name was to go after them out of political motivation. Again, if it were the case, wouldn't you expect some actual denials?
Click to expand...

Let's look at your facts

1. The "none denied" is a moot point since so many never received a ruling at all - for 2+ years. That is defacto denial. That is a fact.

2. You've presented exactly 1 - 1 example of a liberal group that was denied. What do not know is if that group was subject to extra scrutiny or if they were not qualified for 501c3 or c4 status. The fact they were specifically preparing candidates suggests they DO NOT qualify.

3. Repeat of point 1 - the denials haven't occurred since NO DECISION was rendered. They were stonewalled.
 
#363
#363
one group was asked for a list of all the books it's members had read and for a book report on each one
 
#364
#364
BigPapaVol said:
this is ostrich semantics. Stop presuming people here are as stupid as those populating the sites from which you glean your talking points.

On hold was the equivalent of denial, you clown.
Click to expand...


How many experienced a significant delay and, of those, after the process complained of ended, how many still don;t have it?

A half dozen? Less? Come on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#365
#365
I know I'm late to this argument but LMFAO at LG... the guy who runs out of his way 15 miles uphill in the snow to be SURE to label the Tea Party as a racist organization akin to the KKK because one guy who happened to be in the same area as a rally had a "I hate black people" shirt on.... no **** I'm sorry, I mean one guy just batted his eyes the wrong way towards a black guy.

And now you have the audacity to make sure every i is dotted and t is crossed in this case before you will admit there MAY BE a bias and in the slight chance there was it was only low level guys? Dude you are hilarious.

Had this been IRS under Bush targeting Moveon.org with more scrutiny, I can guarandamntee you that LG would be first in line calling for Bush's head and crucifixion. Your hypocrisy is great, not anything new, but damn I love to point your bull**** out.

Thanks for the A+ performance this thread LG, will definitely read again.
 
Last edited:
#367
#367
volinbham said:
Let's look at your facts

1. The "none denied" is a moot point since so many never received a ruling at all - for 2+ years. That is defacto denial. That is a fact.

2. You've presented exactly 1 - 1 example of a liberal group that was denied. What do not know is if that group was subject to extra scrutiny or if they were not qualified for 501c3 or c4 status. The fact they were specifically preparing candidates suggests they DO NOT qualify.

3. Repeat of point 1 - the denials haven't occurred since NO DECISION was rendered. They were stonewalled.
Click to expand...


What was the practical effect of the delay?

And I'll ask again, since you dodged it -- if political motivation was the reason for this, then wouldn't you have expected some denials? Would have been incredibly easy to say they are not social, but are poltiical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#368
#368
lawgator1 said:
I think it should mean exactly that. I don't think "social causes" ought to be equated with political ones. Political groups ought to have to do what other political groups do, in terms of the IRS.

By the way, your logic is also faulty because the group that was denied does not promote one single candidate. They offer training to women from one party. Similarly, the TP groups frequently promoted Republicans.

I am not aware of any Tea Party Democrats in Congress. Therefore, your effort to distinguish them on that basis fails.
Click to expand...

1. What you think the law "should be" is completely irrelevant. The IRS is required to uphold the law as written; not as they think it "should be"

2. You know how the law works - certain things are codified as allowed and others not. I'm suggesting that the liberal group may have said they were doing things specifically codified as not qualifying - e.g. preparing candidates rather than supporting causes.

Look at the NAACP - they indirectly support candidates but do so via supporting causes and issues. They qualify. If they were training candidates they may lose the status.

The IG report says nearly 20 times that the IRS targeted specific political code words. All the examples are from the right.
 
#369
#369
lawgator1 said:
What was the practical effect of the delay?

And I'll ask again, since you dodged it -- if political motivation was the reason for this, then wouldn't you have expected some denials? Would have been incredibly easy to say they are not social, but are poltiical.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? The practical effect is fund raising is insanely difficult since donors cannot write off the donation. That's the whole point of gaining the status.

Denials leave a paper trail for legal challenge - stringing someone along makes it more difficult to take legal action and gives the IRS ongoing reward/punishment power.
 
#370
#370
OrangeYankee said:
I know I'm late to this argument but LMFAO at LG... the guy who runs out of his way 15 miles uphill in the snow to be SURE to label the Tea Party as a racist organization akin to the KKK because one guy who happened to be in the same area as a rally had a "I hate black people" shirt on.... no **** I'm sorry, I mean one guy just batted his eyes the wrong way towards a black guy.

And now you have the audacity to make sure every i is dotted and t is crossed in this case before you will admit there MAYBE a bias and in the slight chance there was it was only low level guys? Dude you are hilarious.

Had this been IRS under Bush targeting Moveon.org with more scrutiny, I can guarandamntee you that LG would be first in line calling for Bush's head and crucifixion. Your hypocrisy is great, not anything new, but damn I love to point your bull**** out.

Thanks for the A+ performance this thread LG, will definitely read again.
Click to expand...


I'm going to set aside the racial issue with the TP for the moment, since you are using that as a red herring.

I'm saying two things:

1) There is actually no proof at this point to support the claim that this was political. The proof is to the contrary. If such proof comes to light, then that has to be dealt with, and severely.

2) Moving forward, we ought to either end the 501(c)(4) exemption altogether, or we ought to clarify that political groups absolutely don't get the exemption, left or right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#371
#371
I guess reappointing the assclown to head of obamacare is an effort to kill off the tea party. I forgot they actually pay for healthcare.
 
#372
#372
lawgator1 said:
1) There is actually no proof at this point to support the claim that this was political. The proof is to the contrary. If such proof comes to light, then that has to be dealt with, and severely.

Proof to the contrary? Are you insane? There is no such proof to the contrary. No decision is worse than a denial since it totally torpedoes your fundraising while making it exceedingly difficult to challenge a decision that was never made.

2) Moving forward, we ought to either end the 501(c)(4) exemption altogether, or we ought to clarify that political groups absolutely don't get the exemption, left or right.
Click to expand...

maybe so but that doesn't change the story as is.
 
#373
#373
lawgator1 said:
I'm going to set aside the racial issue with the TP for the moment, since you are using that as a red herring.

I'm saying two things:

1) There is actually no proof at this point to support the claim that this was political. The proof is to the contrary. If such proof comes to light, then that has to be dealt with, and severely.
Click to expand...

Oh my God. LG - 2 high ranking IRS officials were fired! How much more proof do you need other than that? You are making a fool out yourself.
 
#374
#374
volinbham said:
maybe so but that doesn't change the story as is.
Click to expand...


Oh, I agree. And it absolutely needs to be investigated.


VOLinthaNATI said:
Oh my God. LG - 2 high ranking IRS officials were fired! How much more proof do you need other than that? You are making a fool out yourself.
Click to expand...


That does not prove there was political motivation.



At any rate, who's with me on this: Repeal the 501(c)(4) exemption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#375
#375
volinbham said:
Some things are getting confused in here. 501c4 doesn't mean you can't advocate for political causes. These groups can lobby. They cannot support specific candidates. Sounds like the 1 example of a liberal group denial was specifically preparing candidates.

The line may be blurry but having Tea Party in your name doesn't mean you don't qualify for 501c4. Engaging in specific political activity does.
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly how the rule is stated now, but the rule used to prohibit affecting legislation with tax deductible contributions. I would tell you how I know that, but my injecting personal experience into the discussion would set off a caterwauling of moronic personal attacks of the mob variety. Suffice it to say that I have held the IRS application in my hand while reading it. That was about 25 years ago.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top