Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 43641 - 43660 of total 52610 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 21, 2013 - 08:55am PT
no kidding!!!

IF ONLY the state was wise enough to take away your guns and save your kids from the slaughter of their minds which your 'homes' are designed to produce
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
May 21, 2013 - 09:01am PT
never underestimate a lib's enthusiasm for displaying his ignorance

the article is from REASON; they're not conservatives; they're libertarians


of course, in the lib mind, an all powerful government that threatens freedom of the press will never threaten them; hence, the ap is suddenly part of the vast right-wing conspiracy:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/21/how-hope-and-change-gave-way-to-spying-on-the-press.html


and libs see this as more reason to ban guns

winston smith is dead
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 21, 2013 - 09:08am PT
let us be clear about this


Bookworm gets a government paycheck

he gets government healthcare

and he will get a Nanny State big government pension when he retires


yes folks, booky has got it made in the shade!

photo not found
Missing photo ID#303826

jghedge

climber
May 21, 2013 - 09:38am PT

Repubs will back off investigating the IRS targeting of the Tea Party

Why?

Because they know the Tea Party is the 2nd biggest threat their party faces - demographics being #1

Anything that engenders sympathy for the Tea Party encourages moderate repubs being tea bagged out of the primaries, as has already happened, and actually cost repubs the Senate

If the Tea Party is seen as being persecuted by the Obama DOJ, we'll have actual Tea Party candidates that'll split the conservative vote, and who will actually win in some cases, pushing the repub congressional caucus further right, and exacerbating yet another factor that accelerates their inevitable demise

Almost have to wonder if Obama actually did order the targeting of Tea Party groups, for exactly that reason
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
May 21, 2013 - 10:33am PT
obamacare buyer's remorse:

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/300823-treat-nonprofit-healthcare-fairly#ixzz2Tvz7YuSt
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 21, 2013 - 11:52am PT
Conservative Groups Were Not “Targeted,” “Singled Out” Or Anything Else

You are hearing that conservative groups were “targeted.” What you are not hearing is that progressive groups were also “targeted.” So were groups that are not progressive or conservative.

I'm not sure if your statement constitutes misinterpretation of facts or intentional distortion. Here is a snippet from Wikipedia, so these statements must be true[ ;-) ]:

For a 27-month period that began in February 2010, the IRS did not approve any Tea Party organizations that had submitted applications. During that same time period, numerous liberal organizations with names including words such as “progress” or “progressive” did receive approval. However, several liberal organizations were also targeted for increased scrutiny by IRS officials with the same letter sent to many Tea Party groups, leading to an organization called Emerge America being denied tax-exempt status for alleged election spending concerns.[9]

Flagged organizations were required to provide further documentation that Rep. Bill Flores said was "overreaching and impossible to comply with"[10] Documentation requested varied between different groups but, in some cases, included copies of “any contracts” or “training material” the groups may have exchanged with Koch foundations.[11] Some organizations were asked what books their members were reading, as well as what they had posted on social networking websites, according to Politico.[12] Organizations were informed that if they did not provide the information sought, they would not be certified as tax-exempt.

One pro-life group said it was asked to "Please detail the content of the members of your organization's prayers.".[13]

During the time period in which the applications were being scrutinized, the Cincinnati office of the IRS violated policy by releasing nine pending applications from conservative groups to ProPublica, an investigative reporting organization.[14] Pending applications are confidential and may not be released. ProPublica had made a records request to the office seeking only completed applications, which are public information.

An IRS watchdog report found that some IRS employees were “ignorant about tax laws, defiant of their supervisors, and blind to the appearance of impropriety.”[15]

When Media Trackers, a conservative organization, applied to the IRS for non-profit status, after waiting 16 months, it received no response. When the organization's founder reapplied with what he said was a "liberal-sounding name" ("Greenhouse Solutions"), the re-application was approved in just three weeks.[16]

[Emphasis added]

^ [9] IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row, Bloomberg News, May 15, 2013
^ [10] IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo, USA Today, May 15, 2013
^ [11] Plait, Phil (2013-05-11). "IRS Tea Party investigations: The Internal Revenue Service’s targeted conservative groups. - Slate Magazine". Slate.com. Retrieved 2013-05-15.
^ [12] The IRS wants YOU — to share everything, Politico, May 15, 2013
^ [13] "IRS reportedly grilled pro-life group about the 'content of their prayers'".
^ [14] a b "IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups". ProPublica. 2012-11-15. Retrieved 2013-05-14.
^ [15] IG report: ‘Inappropriate criteria’ stalled IRS approvals of conservative groups, Washington Post, May 14, 2013
^[16] Conservative group says IRS approved nonprofit status after applying with ‘liberal-sounding name’, yahoo.com, May 15, 2013

Norton and others often criticize me (incorrectly, of course!) for alleged false equivalences in my arguments. The argument that conservative and liberal groups were both "targeted," and that therefore conservatives have no cause to gripe, is demonstrably a false equivalence.

John
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
May 21, 2013 - 11:56am PT
I bet NONE of the targeted groups, liberal or conservative, have a legitimate non-political purpose or deserve non-profit status.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 21, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
ok, I give up


exactly WHAT "social welfare" purpose does the majority of Tea Party groups serve?

someone?

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 21, 2013 - 12:17pm PT
exactly WHAT "social welfare" purpose does the majority of Tea Party groups serve?

someone?

The same one that the majority of liberal groups serve. I frankly have never understood why the 501(c)(4) exemption exists. If you want to force changes of behavior in others, you're necessarily involved in politics, and the 527 exemption should be the only avenue. If, on the other hand, you're directly aiding others with your own money, the 501(c)(3) exemption applies. So tell me again, why do we need 501(c)(4)?

John
jghedge

climber
May 21, 2013 - 12:23pm PT
"exactly WHAT "social welfare" purpose does the majority of Tea Party groups serve?"

AcceleratIng the demise of the Repub party

No nobler social welfare cause currently exists

And now the Tea Party will be stronger than ever, and field a 3rd party candidate (Rand Paul, in all likelihood) who will split the conservative vote.

Win-win!
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 21, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
the Tea Party is toxic to the Republican party

they are directly responsible for handing five US Senate seats to the Dems in the last two elections

Karl Rove is on them like stink on sh!t

not gonna work, Karl


the Republican Primaries are now owned by the extreme right and dammit it they are hell bent on putting up the candidates that best mouth the rabid base's rhetoric

the Tea Party is the gift that keeps on giving, to the Dems

in fact, I have joined my local Tea Party to encourage their influence on picking their candidates

I am insisting on "purity" with absolutely no concessions to moderation
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
May 21, 2013 - 12:30pm PT
" So tell me again, why to we need 501(c)(4)?"

If it can be agreed that this is a faulty designation no matter what the ideology, will all of the whining Teabaggers STFU? Sounds like a good deal to me.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
May 21, 2013 - 12:30pm PT
"exactly WHAT "social welfare" purpose does the majority of Tea Party groups serve?"

And what "social welfare" purpose does Media Maters and a plethora of other blatantly partisan big government groups serve?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 21, 2013 - 12:52pm PT
And what "social welfare" purpose does Media Maters and a plethora of other blatantly partisan big government groups serve?


MM does not promote the election of ANY political candidate

MM simply reports "bias" and "untruths" in the conservative media

the Tea Party groups organize, march, and work towards both the election of conservative candidates and the defeat of Democratic candidates

get the difference?

duh
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 21, 2013 - 12:54pm PT

A present-day search of the Media Matters website for the terms “religion” and “Christianity” yields a steady stream of anti-Christian criticism and posts aimed at dismissing Christians’ religious concern over President Obama’s contraception mandate.

Another search revealed a large number of articles critical of perceived “Islamophobia.”

The American media are dominated by conservatism and should be called out for that bias, Media Matters claimed in its tax-exempt application.

“The domination of media’s coverage of news by a single ideology betrays the public trust and weakens our democracy,” the group wrote. “MMA has been established to identify occurrences of excessive bias in the American media, educate the public as to their existence, and work with members of the media to reduce them in order to ensure that the public receives news coverage and information that is not only accurate but free from domination by a particular world view.”
and for the above reasons on their application, MM was awarded a tax exempt status
kennyt

climber
Woodfords,California
May 21, 2013 - 01:01pm PT
let us be clear about this


Bookworm gets a government paycheck

he gets government healthcare

and he will get a Nanny State big government pension when he retires


Man, I hate those guy's
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
May 21, 2013 - 01:41pm PT
If you want to force changes of behavior in others, you're necessarily involved in politics,

Which is why churches should be taxed.
jghedge

climber
May 21, 2013 - 01:42pm PT
"the Tea Party groups organize, march, and work towards both the election of conservative candidates and the defeat of Democratic candidates"


Also not understanding why a group named after a tax revolt, that promotes that ideal, wouldn't attract IRS scrutiny, or why such scrutiny would seem unusual

Imagine if DHS ignored a group named after 9/11, and that promoted terrorism, because the group was right-wing, and therefore couldn't be scrutinized due to perceived political bias


And by the way, I actually support the Tea Party - anything that splits the conservative vote is good for America
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 21, 2013 - 02:10pm PT

Regarding the IRS thing:



A Few Facts

Fact: The IRS is required to determine whether organizations applying for special tax status are "social welfare" groups or are instead engaged in political activity. Political groups cannot get the special tax status these groups were applying for.

Fact: Only one-third of the groups that were passed to specialists for a closer look were "conservative." Lots of other organizations were also checked, including progressive organizations.

Fact: No groups were audited or harassed or "targeted" or "singled out." This was about applications for special tax status being forwarded to specialists for a closer look to see if they were engaged in political activity that would disqualify them for the special tax status. This closer look is the kind of review all organization should get, but the IRS was swamped because of the flood of groups applying for a status that let them mask their donors, after Citizens United.

Fact: No groups were harmed. There were delays while the groups were checked to see if they should have special tax status. That's it. But the rules are that they are allowed to operate as if they had that status while they waited for official approval.

Fact: The only groups actually denied special tax status were progressive groups, not conservative groups. In 2011, during the period that "conservative groups were targeted" the New York Times carried the story, 3 Groups Denied Break by I.R.S. Are Named. The three groups? Drum roll ... "The I.R.S. denied tax exemption to the groups — Emerge Nevada, Emerge Maine and Emerge Massachusetts — because, the agency wrote in denial letters, they were set up specifically to cultivate Democratic candidates."

Fact: The IRS commissioner in charge at the IRS at the time this happened was appointed President George W. Bush.

Fact: According to the inspector general's report (p. 10) in the "majority of cases, we agreed that the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention."
DK
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 21, 2013 - 02:58pm PT
Fact: Only one-third of the groups that were passed to specialists for a closer look were "conservative." Lots of other organizations were also checked, including progressive organizations.

Fact: No groups were audited or harassed or "targeted" or "singled out." This was about applications for special tax status being forwarded to specialists for a closer look to see if they were engaged in political activity that would disqualify them for the special tax status. This closer look is the kind of review all organization should get, but the IRS was swamped because of the flood of groups applying for a status that let them mask their donors, after Citizens United.

Fact: The only groups actually denied special tax status were progressive groups, not conservative groups. In 2011, during the period that "conservative groups were targeted" the New York Times carried the story, 3 Groups Denied Break by I.R.S. Are Named. The three groups? Drum roll ... "The I.R.S. denied tax exemption to the groups — Emerge Nevada, Emerge Maine and Emerge Massachusetts — because, the agency wrote in denial letters, they were set up specifically to cultivate Democratic candidates."

Norton, you know better.

FACT: For a 27-month period that began in February 2010, the IRS did not approve any Tea Party organizations that had submitted applications. During that same time period, numerous liberal organizations with names including words such as “progress” or “progressive” did receive approval. However, several liberal organizations were also targeted for increased scrutiny by IRS officials with the same letter sent to many Tea Party groups, leading to an organization called Emerge America being denied tax-exempt status for alleged election spending concerns.[9]

Thus, the fact that the tea party groups were only 1/3 of all groups given special scrutiny, and that some "progressive" groups were denied tax exempt status proves nothing. Every tea party group was denied a clearance. Every last one. If every Armenian in Chicago, say, were thrown in jail, they would only constitute a small proportion of the total inmate population. Does that mean they weren't specially targeted, when every single one was imprisoned? The fact that Democratic apologists resort to that argument ipso facto demonstrates the weakness of their position.

Regardless of the wisdom of 501(c)(4), the IRS actions were, as President Obama rightly said, outrageous. The administration is at least intelligent enough to let congress investigate what happened. That way, there can be no charges of a cover-up. Those blaming the investigators, or condoning the IRS actions, can't be taken seriously.

John
Messages 43641 - 43660 of total 52610 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews