So wingnuts, nobody answered my question, what "social welfare" does the Tea Party do?

[deep]

well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt
status?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:21:46 -0600, deep wrote:

>well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt
>status?

Poor Dudu......

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicg81.pdf

There is no official Congressional or Service pronouncement construing
the terms "civic league" or "social welfare" as embodied in section
501(c)(4).

However, In United States v. Pickwick Electric Membership Corp., 158
F. 2d 272 (6 Cir. 1946), the Court stated that a civic organization is
described as embodying "the ideas of citizens of a community
cooperating to promote the common good and general welfare of the
community." In C.I.R. v. Lake Forest, Inc., 305 F. 2d 814 (4 Cir.
1962), the court described a civic organization as being "a movement
of citizenry or the community," whereas the court in Erie Endowment v.
United States, 316 F. 2d 151 (1963), while acknowledging the difficult
task in arriving at a specific definition of "civic organization,"
stated that "the organization must be a community movement designed to
accomplish community ends."

There's more, but you won't read it so I'm not going to post it all
here.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:30:18 PM UTC-5, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:21:46 -0600, Tiefe Scheiße wrote:
>
>> So wingnuts, nobody answered my question, what "social welfare"
>> does the Tea Party do?

>
>> well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt status?
>

TROLL-O-METER


5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity

>
> Poor Dudu......
>
> http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicg81.pdf
>
> There is no official Congressional or Service pronouncement construing
> the terms "civic league" or "social welfare" as embodied in section 501(c)(4).
> However, In United States v. Pickwick Electric Membership Corp., 158 F. 2d 272
> (6 Cir. 1946), the Court stated that a civic organization is described as embodying
> "the ideas of citizens of a community cooperating to promote the common good
> and general welfare of the community." In C.I.R. v. Lake Forest, Inc., 305 F. 2d 814
> (4 Cir. 1962), the court described a civic organization as being "a movement of
> citizenry or the community," whereas the court in Erie Endowment v. United States,
> 316 F. 2d 151 (1963), while acknowledging the difficult task in arriving at a specific
> definition of "civic organization," stated that "the organization must be a community
> movement designed to accomplish community ends." There's more, but you won't
> read it so I'm not going to post it all here.
>

Even if the Scheißekopf Scheiße-Tasche were to read it, he wouldn't understand it; as it's not from his Official VLILLLDM Talking Points Manual from the DNC.

Remember that epic statement he made from his Brady/DNC Talking Points Manual wherein he declared that no one uses a 1911-type pistol anymore? <g> :)

[deep]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 14:33:40 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
<topco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:30:18 PM UTC-5, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:21:46 -0600, Tiefe Scheiße wrote:
>>
>>> So wingnuts, nobody answered my question, what "social welfare"
>>> does the Tea Party do?
>>
>>> well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt status?
>>

Well? Can't answer the question, can you? So one can only assume the
answer is "nothing". So all this attack on the IRS for only doing
their jobs... is about what?

Nothing but an attack on Obama.

You can always count on the conservatives for a nice witch hunt.

But I always knew you were a worthless lying fuck Tiny Johnson.

[Ariel Castro : A Mormon and typical GOP follower]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:21:46 PM UTC-5, deep wrote:
> well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt
>
> status?

It seems ole Mitch O'connell was against those pesty 501 services back when the democrats actually had real "social welfare "programs .. like education.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:31:10 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 14:33:40 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
><topco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:30:18 PM UTC-5, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:21:46 -0600, Tiefe Schei�e wrote:
>>>
>>>> So wingnuts, nobody answered my question, what "social welfare"
>>>> does the Tea Party do?
>>>
>>>> well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt status?
>>>
>
>Well? Can't answer the question, can you?

Can't read the IRS Continuing Professional Education text I posted,
eh, troll?

[STEADY EDDY]

On May 19, 11:21 am, deep wrote:
> well?  Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt
> status?

Hopefully we can cast aside the nut jobs and get down to the single
most important issue facing our nation. The debt. We are drowning in
debt. What is the response of our elected morons. Let's hold hearings
on Benghazi and the IRS. Let's get the electorate pissed off at the
one branch or party so we can continue to spend every fucking dime we
have or ever will have. The Republicans are just as fucking guilty as
the Democrats. We need to throw the bums out of office and start with
a clean slate. We spend an enormous amount of money on debt service.
The best idea that the politicians can come up with is to "hold
pointless hearings" and spend more money on bullshit. Another great
idea is gun control. Yeah, good idea. Let's get the electorate pissed
off about guns so we can continue to spend money like it is going out
of style. The politicians continue to divide the electorate so they
can bankrupt our nation. Fuck the democrats and the republicans. I
will vote for anyone who wants to tackle the debt and cut spending.
Our nation is doomed unless we can CUT SPENDING AND TRIM THE DEBT. We
are spending our children's money and future. Our colleges are in
shambles. They take public money and pay football coaches 5 million
dollar salaries. Colleges are nothing more than recruitment camps for
professional football. A college football coach can earn 5 million
dollars but our nation can't afford dental care for the people. How
fucking twisted is that? We can pay a coach 5 million dollars but we
turn away students who can't afford an education. Our nation is
decaying but we have great football every Saturday in the fall.
Sheeesh.

[Ivan Bodley]

"STEADY EDDY" wrote in message
news:2df36420-0312-4102...@kt20g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

On May 19, 11:21 am, deep wrote:
> well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt
> status?

Hopefully we can cast aside the nut jobs and get down to the single
most important issue facing our nation.

####

You and Deep Dudu,
Sitting in a tree
Sucking each other's
Cocks for free.

Deep dudu with landminds
Steady Uneddy Unkind
They share the same mind!
They are to unwind

They are both insane
They both refrain
From telling the truth
And have no tooth
In the bight of justice!

[pyotr filipivich]

The same of social welfare that ACORN, Moveon.Org. Organizing for
Obama, and the myriad other lefty groups provide: information and
Organization for The People.
--
pyotr filipivich
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious
is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell

[Bert]

In news:kt5ip8tcrk0o6j035...@4ax.com deep wrote:

> well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt
> status?
>

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici03.pdf

Or, you might just look at Obama's "OFA" organization for insight into
what a 501(c)(4) group does.

http://www.barackobama.com/about/about-ofa/

"OFA will operate as a "social welfare" organization within the meaning
of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code."

[I realize that you might have to find someone to read these to you and
to explain what many of the words mean.]

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

[WangoTango]

In article <kt5ip8tcrk0o6j035...@4ax.com>, deep says...

> well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt
> status?
>

Why should we answer your questions when you so conveniently ignore
those asked of you.

What Constitutionally enumerated power gives the federal government the
power to regulate a gun transaction between two individuals within a
state?

[deep]

Ask the Supreme Court. They've ajudicated that federal gun control
laws are not unconstitutional.

And I notice you can't answer the question. No big surprise there.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:di1lp8h3v21gngtq5...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:07:53 -0400, WangoTango
> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <kt5ip8tcrk0o6j035...@4ax.com>, deep says...
>>> well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt
>>> status?
>>>
>>Why should we answer your questions when you so conveniently ignore
>>those asked of you.
>>
>>What Constitutionally enumerated power gives the federal government the
>>power to regulate a gun transaction between two individuals within a
>>state?
>
> Ask the Supreme Court. They've ajudicated that federal gun control
> laws are not unconstitutional.

They adjudicated that SOME federal gun control laws were constitutional.
Those with longstanding history like who is or is not a prohibited
possessor or that the right does not cover ANY weapon whatsoever at ANY
time whatsever.

> And I notice you can't answer the question. No big surprise there.

I believe that question was asked of you. Here it is again:

What Constitutionally enumerated power gives the federal government the
power to regulate a gun transaction between two individuals within a
state?

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

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

[STEADY EDDY]

It never fails to amaze me about how many republican right wing nut
are gay. I mean look at Ivan writing gay poetry to DuDu. Klaus built a
worship site to DuDu and now they are fantisizing about a gay
relationship between DuDu and I.

[deep]

No, that's not the question. The question was what social welfare the
Tea Party and patriot groups do. Anything else is an attempt at a
dodge.

And you know damned well what rulings SCOTUS has made that upheld
federal gun control laws, thereby establishing legal precidents.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:ghflp89s0to8crkfm...@4ax.com:

That's the question that was right up above. I didn't ask it. Wango
Tango did. You didn't answer it.

The question was what social welfare the
> Tea Party and patriot groups do. Anything else is an attempt at a
> dodge.
>
> And you know damned well what rulings SCOTUS has made that upheld
> federal gun control laws, thereby establishing legal precidents.

Yep, I reiterated some of it right up above. It is not as extensive as
you believe.

[deep]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:05:40 -0500, RD Sandman

He didn't answer mine which was asked first. His answer was another
completely unrelated question. That's known as a dodge. I'm sure
there's some argumentum ad whateverum official name for a dodge but
I'm not sure what it is.

> The question was what social welfare the
>> Tea Party and patriot groups do. Anything else is an attempt at a
>> dodge.
>>
>> And you know damned well what rulings SCOTUS has made that upheld
>> federal gun control laws, thereby establishing legal precidents.
>
>Yep, I reiterated some of it right up above. It is not as extensive as
>you believe.

But they've clearly established that federal gun control laws are not
unconstitutional.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:qmjlp8tbhe03ookjh...@4ax.com:

Add the word "some" in there and I will agree with you.

[WangoTango]

In article <di1lp8h3v21gngtq5...@4ax.com>, deep says...

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:07:53 -0400, WangoTango
> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <kt5ip8tcrk0o6j035...@4ax.com>, deep says...
> >> well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt
> >> status?
> >>
> >Why should we answer your questions when you so conveniently ignore
> >those asked of you.
> >
> >What Constitutionally enumerated power gives the federal government the
> >power to regulate a gun transaction between two individuals within a
> >state?
>
> Ask the Supreme Court. They've ajudicated that federal gun control
> laws are not unconstitutional.

That isn't answer to what I asked.
Want to try again?

[WangoTango]

In article <ghflp89s0to8crkfm...@4ax.com>, deep says...

That still doesn't answer the question.
It isn't even one that is specific to GUNS.
Try again...

[WangoTango]

In article <qmjlp8tbhe03ookjh...@4ax.com>, deep says...

Not a question about guns, could be applied, but not limited to.

[RD Sandman]

WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:MPG.2c1c1027...@news.east.earthlink.net:

Besides Dudu's comment isn't quite when the Supreme Court said. They
stated that *SOME* federal laws were constitutional particularly those
with a long standing history like felons being prohibited possessors.

> Want to try again?

He doesn't want to get into the Commerce Act. ;)

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

Old Air Force adage..The only time you have too
much fuel is when you are on fire!!

[Gray Guest]

deep wrote in news:kt5ip8tcrk0o6j035...@4ax.com:

> well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt
> status?
>

They pay the lion's share of the taxes.

Now fuck off.

--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama

[WangoTango]

In article <XnsA1D98AAD4...@216.196.121.131>, rdsandman[remove]
@comcast.net says...

> WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.2c1c1027...@news.east.earthlink.net:
>
> > In article <di1lp8h3v21gngtq5...@4ax.com>, deep says...
> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:07:53 -0400, WangoTango
> >> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <kt5ip8tcrk0o6j035...@4ax.com>, deep
> >> >says...
> >> >> well? Anything that would actually qualify them for tax exempt
> >> >> status?
> >> >>
> >> >Why should we answer your questions when you so conveniently ignore
> >> >those asked of you.
> >> >
> >> >What Constitutionally enumerated power gives the federal government
> >> >the power to regulate a gun transaction between two individuals
> >> >within a state?
> >>
> >> Ask the Supreme Court. They've ajudicated that federal gun control
> >> laws are not unconstitutional.
> >
> > That isn't answer to what I asked.
>
> Besides Dudu's comment isn't quite when the Supreme Court said. They
> stated that *SOME* federal laws were constitutional particularly those
> with a long standing history like felons being prohibited possessors.
>
> > Want to try again?
>
> He doesn't want to get into the Commerce Act. ;)

Hell, *I* don't want to get into the Commerce Act.

[RD Sandman]

WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:MPG.2c2175e1a...@news.east.earthlink.net:

Bingo. I agree with you that the federal government really has no
constitutional oversight for sales of private property between citizens
within a state.