Does anybody really think the Tea Party does anything for "social welfare"

[deep]

Since they clearly don't just what was the IRS doing wrong by
investigating them?

true answer: absolutlely nothing

Just more conservative desperation. You're always desperate to
destroy populist liberal leaders and will go to any lengths and lies
to do so. Too bad Obama is a good family man and you can't set him up
with a whore like you did Clinton.

[STEADY EDDY]

Don't be so sure. I heard that Klaus bought a red dress and is hanging
around the White House.

[walt tonne]

Picture Obama mounting the First Lady doggie style. Look like a
praying mantis mounting
a softball.

[slate_leeper]

Does anybody really think they should be treated differently than any
other similar organization of differing political philosophies?




--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

[bigdog]

Even Obama's libtard media friends have run for cover on this one because it is so bad. Using the hammer of the IRS to go after dissenting political groups is so appalling that even the lefties can't defend it, except of course for the few retards like you.

[Bert]

In news:q1hfp85ps6fe4986s...@4ax.com deep wrote:

> Since they clearly don't

You clearly have no idea what the term "social welfare" means in the
context of a 501(c) exemption.

But then, you have no idea of how most things are.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[deep]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:39:28 -0400, slate_leeper
<bycy...@spamex.com> wrote:

>Does anybody really think they should be treated differently than any
>other similar organization of differing political philosophies?

If they are applying for tax exempt status for "social welfare"
reasons then they should have to prove it and the IRS SHOULD be
investigating them.

[deep]

they were investing all organizations, even left wing ones. this is
just right wing spin because they feel "patriot" organizations should
have special privileges.

[Ariel Castro : A Mormon and typical GOP follower]

Y
TEA BAGGERS are not patriots .. they are sore losers!

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:8nthp81jkkm6dcf9n...@4ax.com:

That is fine as long as it is investigating both sides of the political
spectrum.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

[slate_leeper]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:02:06 -0600, deep wrote:


>they were investing all organizations, even left wing ones. this is
>just right wing spin because they feel "patriot" organizations should
>have special privileges.

And that is why they were specifically told to select organizations
that had "tea party" or "patriot" or "912" as part of their names.

Try lying a little less obviously.

[deep]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 07:26:21 -0400, slate_leeper
<bycy...@spamex.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:02:06 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>
>>they were investing all organizations, even left wing ones. this is
>>just right wing spin because they feel "patriot" organizations should
>>have special privileges.
>
>
>And that is why they were specifically told to select organizations
>that had "tea party" or "patriot" or "912" as part of their names.

that was a low level decision by agents looking for ways to filter
some of the thousands of political groups looking for tax exempt
status. They merely picked those terms because those kind of groups
are primarily political lobbying groups and would not qualify.

[deep]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:46:46 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>deep wrote in news:8nthp81jkkm6dcf9n...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:39:28 -0400, slate_leeper
>> <bycy...@spamex.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Does anybody really think they should be treated differently than any
>>>other similar organization of differing political philosophies?
>>
>> If they are applying for tax exempt status for "social welfare"
>> reasons then they should have to prove it and the IRS SHOULD be
>> investigating them.
>>
>
>That is fine as long as it is investigating both sides of the political
>spectrum.

It was, and there's no reason to think it wasn't. There were plenty
of left wing groups being investigated too.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Go ahead and document that.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:02:06 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:32:37 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
><jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:15:47 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>> Since they clearly don't just what was the IRS doing wrong by
>>>
>>> investigating them?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> true answer: absolutlely nothing
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just more conservative desperation. You're always desperate to
>>>
>>> destroy populist liberal leaders and will go to any lengths and lies
>>>
>>> to do so. Too bad Obama is a good family man and you can't set him up
>>>
>>> with a whore like you did Clinton.
>>
>>Even Obama's libtard media friends have run for cover on this one because it is so bad. Using the hammer of the IRS to go after dissenting political groups is so appalling that even the lefties can't defend it, except of course for the few retards like you.
>
>they were investing all organizations, even left wing ones.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

So you're OK with that, even though those names are "clearly" used
primarily by right wing groups.

Face it. If they had used "progressive" instead of "tea party" you'd
be shrieking in outrage, in that high squeaky voice of yours.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:oh8kp8hv05dvh6h3u...@4ax.com:

The Week, Time and some other mags don't think so. Time has a good
article in it this week where they talk about the scrutiny being
decidedly one sided. Let's see....72 nonprofit applications flagged for
containing the words, "Tea Party"; 13 flagged for containing the word
"Patriots" and 11 flagged for containing "9/12". Another group, True
the Vote, headed by Catherine Engelbrecht, has been held up for three
years.

From Time:

As questions swirled, the IRS repeatedly denied that anything was amiss.
"I can give you assurances," former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman told
a House committee in March 2012 when asked about claims of political
bias. He was an appointee of George W Bush and spoke of his agency's
pride in "being a nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization." He said,
"What's been happening has been the normal back and forth that happens
with the IRS."

Shulman was wrong, and his words helped conceal the largest political
scandal at the IRS since the Nixon era. An explosive inspector general
general report released May 14 revealed that the agency had, starting in
March of 2010, systematically flagged nonprofit applications from groups
whose names included words like Tea Party and Patriots. By June 2011,
groups that addressed "government spending, government debt and taxes"
were flagged, along with groups that criticized "how the country is being
run". (Liberal leaning groups, by contract, were sometimes identified
for further investigation but less systematically).


It is a rather interesting article.

[deep]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:40:53 -0500, RD Sandman

<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>deep wrote in news:oh8kp8hv05dvh6h3u...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:46:46 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>deep wrote in news:8nthp81jkkm6dcf9n...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:39:28 -0400, slate_leeper
>>>> <bycy...@spamex.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Does anybody really think they should be treated differently than any
>>>>>other similar organization of differing political philosophies?
>>>>
>>>> If they are applying for tax exempt status for "social welfare"
>>>> reasons then they should have to prove it and the IRS SHOULD be
>>>> investigating them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is fine as long as it is investigating both sides of the political
>>>spectrum.
>>
>> It was, and there's no reason to think it wasn't. There were plenty
>> of left wing groups being investigated too.
>>
>
>The Week, Time and some other mags don't think so. Time has a good
>article in it this week where they talk about the scrutiny being
>decidedly one sided. Let's see....72 nonprofit applications flagged for
>containing the words, "Tea Party"; 13 flagged for containing the word
>"Patriots" and 11 flagged for containing "9/12". Another group, True
>the Vote, headed by Catherine Engelbrecht, has been held up for three
>years.
>

There were thousands of applications, the lion's share being from
right wing organizations implementing Rove's strategy of tax cheating.
They are organizations that are purely political and do nothing for
the "social welfare" of anybody. They should be investigated, and of
course many more are going to turn up with key searches using Tea
Party and Patriot because there were so many more right wing
organization. It's like if there are 9 are right wing groups and only
1 left wing group, then random selection is going to turn up nine
times the hits for right wing groups. Simple really. And if there
was any improper policy going on, it happened at many, many paygrades
below Obama, and the right wing desperation to stick such an absurd
charge on Obama is beyond pathetic.

But I just love it when the right wingers prove how desperate they
are.

>From Time:
>
>As questions swirled, the IRS repeatedly denied that anything was amiss.
>"I can give you assurances," former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman told
>a House committee in March 2012 when asked about claims of political
>bias. He was an appointee of George W Bush and spoke of his agency's
>pride in "being a nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization." He said,
>"What's been happening has been the normal back and forth that happens
>with the IRS."

Gee, an appointee of Bush singling out right wing organizations.
Right.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:i3vkp85sari5ti0rc...@4ax.com:

I assume that you think you are familiar with all those groups and so can
speak to the IRS about them. ROFLMAO!!!

> But I just love it when the right wingers prove how desperate they
> are.
>
>
>>From Time:
>>
>>As questions swirled, the IRS repeatedly denied that anything was
>>amiss. "I can give you assurances," former IRS commissioner Douglas
>>Shulman told a House committee in March 2012 when asked about claims
>>of political bias. He was an appointee of George W Bush and spoke of
>>his agency's pride in "being a nonpolitical, nonpartisan
>>organization." He said, "What's been happening has been the normal
>>back and forth that happens with the IRS."
>
> Gee, an appointee of Bush singling out right wing organizations.
> Right.

It happens....However, he was not implicated in singling out the right
wing groups just being in error about whether or not it was happening. I
see that reading comprehension still isn't in your repertoire.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7u8kp81e57nlcf4ea...@4ax.com...

And not just investigated, but bumped up for special investigations.

Then he can document how many liberal organizations confidential
applications and documentation were release to opposition groups or liberal
media outlets.

[deep]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:34:12 -0500, RD Sandman

Obviously he didn't know. Neither did Obama of course. This was a
decision made at a very low clerical level and was not some great of
plot by Satan to corrupt your virginal daughters. It was a simple
case of IRS employees having so many applications they had to start
sorting them somehow, so they were doing keyword searches on certain
organization type know for primarily political lobbying. IRS
employees have come forward and said such.

[Wayne]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
news:XnsA1C56DA6D...@216.196.121.131...

deep wrote in news:8nthp81jkkm6dcf9n...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:39:28 -0400, slate_leeper
> <bycy...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
>>Does anybody really think they should be treated differently than any
>>other similar organization of differing political philosophies?
>
> If they are applying for tax exempt status for "social welfare"
> reasons then they should have to prove it and the IRS SHOULD be
> investigating them.
>

# That is fine as long as it is investigating both sides of the political
# spectrum.

Personally, I wouldn't say that Obama is directly involved in any harassment
of any organization. However, you must admit that bad things happen to
people/organizations that he doesn't like.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:o6flp8pcnknjnjjkp...@4ax.com:

I haven't claimed Obama did. Save that for someone who makes those
comments.

This was a
> decision made at a very low clerical level

I feel the decision was made at about the middle management level. It
wasn't Obama nor was it at a very low clerical level.

and was not some great of
> plot by Satan to corrupt your virginal daughters.

Again, address that to someone else.

It was a simple
> case of IRS employees having so many applications they had to start
> sorting them somehow, so they were doing keyword searches on certain
> organization type know for primarily political lobbying. IRS
> employees have come forward and said such.

That must be where all these news media are getting the other
information. I am sure that all possible scandals in the future, they
will just drop by your ranch in Montana and ask you what is going on. ;)

[RD Sandman]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:kneebl$a9$1...@dont-email.me:

There may be some folks picking up on what Obama feels and acting on it.
I agree that he is not directly involved but it does seem to have become
somewhat of a culture.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/15/report-the-irs-also-targeted-at-least-three-liberal-groups/

The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it
targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also
had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking
nonprofit status.

One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status
denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of
the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

Progress Texas, another of the organizations, faced the same lines
of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that
issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group,
Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns,
also received IRS inquiries.

Meanwhile, there�s still the disparity that Nicholas Confessore
reported here. At the same time the IRS was investigating smaller
groups applying for 501(c)(4) status, it gave a pass to larger
organizations like Karl Rove�s Crossroads GPS or Bill Burton�s
Priorities USA that were allowed to receive anonymous donations �
groups that were overtly political and heavily involved in the 2012
campaign.

� �Crossroads GPS and Priorities USA were created for the purpose of
hiding donors.�

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/15/crossroads-gps-and-priorities-usa-were-created-for-the-purpose-of-hiding-donors/

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

THREE! Thanks for helping out Dudu.......

[RD Sandman]

GOP_Decline_and_Fall <D...@null.net> wrote in
news:la4mp8lps3op2capk...@4ax.com:

They've may have just been tied up for three years like Catherine
Engelbrecht's organization True the Vote has been.

You mentioned three organization on the liberal side. Per Time magaine
the number of non-profits flagged for containing the words "Tea Party"
was 72. The number for containing the words "Patriots" was 13 and the
number for containing the word "9/12" was 11.

Even Time suggests that the scrutiny was decidedly one sided.

We shall see what turns up in the investigation. Meanwhile, Joseph
Grant, acting commissioner of the IRS says, "We believe that the front
line career employees that made the decisions acted out of a desire for
efficiency and not out of any political or partisan viewpoint." He feels
that the problem is due to mismanagement and poor judgement. There are
four congressional committees that will be investigating, promising
months of sworn testimony and subpoenas. The IRS has told the inspector
general that no one from the White House had any role in deciding the
criteria for investigating applications.

See article Time Magazine, May 27, 2013 p 36-37. It is the issue with
Angelina Jolie on the cover.

[deep]

So they were "flagged". So what? There was no great left wing
conspiracy. Actually, you have to ask yourself WHY all those many,
many right wing organizations all filed for tax exempt status at the
same time when none of it is required by law. That's right, none of
them HAD to file. It was strictly voluntary. Can you say "setup"?
Something smells rotten. This is NOT a left wing conspiracy to deny
conservative organizations their tax exempt status as none of it was
necessary. This one stinks of a right wing plot to set up and harass
the IRS and once again desperately attempt to destroy Obama.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:50:33 -0600, deep wrote:


>So they were "flagged". So what? There was no great left wing
>conspiracy.

LOL Nope, just the usual Government abuse. Nothing to see here folks!

> Actually, you have to ask yourself WHY all those many,
>many right wing organizations all filed for tax exempt status at the
>same time when none of it is required by law.

Why do we have to ask ourselves this? How many left wing organizations
filed at the same time?

> That's right, none of
>them HAD to file. It was strictly voluntary. Can you say "setup"?
>Something smells rotten.

It sure does. Another government abuse of power.

> This is NOT a left wing conspiracy to deny
>conservative organizations their tax exempt status as none of it was
>necessary. This one stinks of a right wing plot to set up and harass
>the IRS and once again desperately attempt to destroy Obama.

Oh, so it's a RIGHT-wing conspiracy.

[chuckle]


"POINT PROVEN!"
Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP

[Scout]

"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <D...@null.net> wrote in message
news:la4mp8lps3op2capk...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:23:45 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:02:06 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:32:37 -0700 (PDT), bigdog
>>><jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:15:47 PM UTC-4, deep wrote:
>>>>> Since they clearly don't just what was the IRS doing wrong by
>>>>>
>>>>> investigating them?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> true answer: absolutlely nothing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just more conservative desperation. You're always desperate to
>>>>>
>>>>> destroy populist liberal leaders and will go to any lengths and lies
>>>>>
>>>>> to do so. Too bad Obama is a good family man and you can't set him up
>>>>>
>>>>> with a whore like you did Clinton.
>>>>
>>>>Even Obama's libtard media friends have run for cover on this one
>>>>because it is so bad. Using the hammer of the IRS to go after dissenting
>>>>political groups is so appalling that even the lefties can't defend it,
>>>>except of course for the few retards like you.
>>>
>>>they were investing all organizations, even left wing ones.
>>
>>Go ahead and document that.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/15/report-the-irs-also-targeted-at-least-three-liberal-groups/
>
> The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it
> targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also
> had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking
> nonprofit status.

Wow, at least 3...... vs at least 500 conservative groups.

Yea, we certainly can't see the discrimination there.

[deep]

So just why did all those conservative groups all of a sudden all
apply for 501(c)(4) status when it's not even required by law for them
to file??? All of these hundreds of conservative organizations, even
know not required by a law to file, all at the same time sent in tax
exempt status applications.

Hmmmmm?

Something stinks, and as usual it's the conservatives.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:8i1op8ps4a0j6m1q4...@4ax.com:

It is if they wish to have tax exempt status. It affects their donars
and their contributors.

All of these hundreds of conservative organizations, even
> know not required by a law to file, all at the same time sent in tax
> exempt status applications.

What makes you think that they all placed their applications at the same
time? This is an accumulation starting in March of 2010.

> Hmmmmm?
>
> Something stinks, and as usual it's the conservatives.
>

[deep]

I'll type this real slow so that you can keep up:

they aren't required by law to apply, they can just treat their
organization exactly the same. So the application process is just a
formality that is NOT required by law.

So it's blatant harassment from the right wing and part of the Karl
Rove strategy of deceit and corruption of the system.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/21/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus-campaign-20101021

> All of these hundreds of conservative organizations, even
>> know not required by a law to file, all at the same time sent in tax
>> exempt status applications.
>
>
>What makes you think that they all placed their applications at the same
>time? This is an accumulation starting in March of 2010.
>

They have hundreds of applications from conservative organizations and
only a handful of ones from left wing groups.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Why is that relevant? How many leftist groups filed?

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:ji3op8t5jtivd1gi1...@4ax.com:

Perhaps you should read a bit more before you post.

> they aren't required by law to apply, they can just treat their
> organization exactly the same. So the application process is just a
> formality that is NOT required by law.

The problem is that the issue of tax exemption needs to be settled for
their donors so that they don't end up with tax issues.

> So it's blatant harassment from the right wing and part of the Karl
> Rove strategy of deceit and corruption of the system.
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/21/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus-campaign-
> 20101021

If you could take your head out of your partisan ass long enough, you
might learn something.