RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution

RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 3:23:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: If all they do is teach the Constitution then sure they qualify but none of the groups were doing that exclusively as the law requires and once again groups on both sides were subject to the same level of scrutiny. There is no scandal except that Issa lied to the nation. Just factually not true. It has been documented in numerous places that conservative groups were subject to extra scrutiny. Go see the opening post, for example. You're behind on the facts. You need to start reading more than the echo chamber. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/issa-directed-treasury-inspector-general-to-ignore-irs-treatment-of-liberal-groups/

DaddySatyr -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 3:34:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion Yale University did some studies in 2003 and again in 2011 about politics and peoples perception. . They gave a ficticious position by one political party and asked the group what they thought of that position. Conservatives interpreted it their way and Liberals did the same, their way. It is called "selective interpretation" People "believe" what they want despite solid FACTS if it supports their party's argument. That principal is very evident in these threads. I tried searching for thes studies for about 30 minutes. I couldn't find them. Could you help out a poor libertarian who's down on his luck with the google-fu? Thank you. Peace and comfort, Michael

dcnovice -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 3:38:22 PM)
quote: I tried searching for thes studies for about 30 minutes. I couldn't find them. Could you help out a poor libertarian who's down on his luck with the google-fu? Thank you. Not sure if this is it, Michael, but it sounds interesting. At least the abstract does. [:)] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1755706

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 3:58:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: If all they do is teach the Constitution then sure they qualify but none of the groups were doing that exclusively as the law requires and once again groups on both sides were subject to the same level of scrutiny. There is no scandal except that Issa lied to the nation. Just factually not true. It has been documented in numerous places that conservative groups were subject to extra scrutiny. Go see the opening post, for example. You're behind on the facts. You need to start reading more than the echo chamber. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/issa-directed-treasury-inspector-general-to-ignore-irs-treatment-of-liberal-groups/ Sorry. Factually not true. Its your quote that is out of date. I've been aware that the original filter by lerner included progressive, for over a month. Just as I am aware that this 'filter' was political duck and cover. The timeline more or less is this. Head of IRS makes frequent visits to white house. More than 150. As compared with 2 in Bush era. Lerner's group start selective review. Some democrats congressmen request review for Tea party groups. (Inappropriate!) Lerners group started using filters to apply selective review Lerner sends memo saying use of filters is inappropriate Selectrive prosecutiion stops for a few months - then resumes. After the selective review overwhelmingly conservative groups were engaged in comprehensive review. Conservative groups were forwarded to washington for special enforcement. IG begins to investigate. Lerner releases the information about selective review as an effort to spin it - since the IG report was going to break the next day IG report breaks. ISSA starts hearings. Congressional hearings reveal huge issues with IG report - like no one interviewed policy makers. IG is asked to investigate the selective prosecution of conservative groups. Democrats start trying to spin that liberal groups ALSO were targeted. Latest review shows that, NO democrat groups were not subject to equal prosecution. Your news story is still from the penultimate step. And if I got a step wrong here or missed one - excusi. Its all from memory from reading conducted over the last months. Unlike you, I picked it up from slightly before Lerner's april spin, as conservatives have been alleging selective prosecution for 2 years now.

DomKen -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 4:39:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Latest review shows that, NO democrat groups were not subject to equal prosecution. As usual dawg you're making up your own facts. What the Treasury IG says is not all progressive groups received the same scrutiny but the fact remains groups on both sides got the extra scrutiny. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/27/ways-and-means-irs-werfel-tea-party/2461573/ You even admitted as much in your first post. Your problem might be that you think there are hundreds of illegal 501(c)4 leftist groups like there are right wing ones. That is simply not the case.

Owner59 -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 4:52:26 PM)
This is what`s wrong with the republican/Obama-hate bubble....... They tend to repeat things that aren`t true......and never get the memo that they`re repeating garbage. One example......the IRS chief did not in fact visit the White House "more than 150 times". They were cleared(an advance process that ANYONE,accept gay-male hookers that moon-light as fake reporters to ask fake questions at bush new`s conferences like Jeff Gannon) to go to the White House, over a 150 times. The actual amount of visits to the White House made by the IRS chief (a bush appointee) was eleven. Not all official either. The rabid republicans are going to need more than dis-information and fibs to hurt the President.

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 4:56:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Latest review shows that, NO democrat groups were not subject to equal prosecution. As usual you're making up your own facts. What the Treasury IG says is not all progressive groups received the same scrutiny but the fact remains groups on both sides got the extra scrutiny. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/27/ways-and-means-irs-werfel-tea-party/2461573/ You even admitted as much in your first post. Your problem might be that you think there are hundreds of illegal 501(c)4 leftist groups like there are right wing ones. That is simply not the case. As usual, I am not. The IG says that not all progressive groups receive the same review. True. It also says 3/10 recieved scrutiny, While 10/10 of conservative groups received scrutiny. WHICH IS WHAT I SAID IN THE OPENING POST AND YOU DISPUTED. Additionally, the IG report said that the "comprehensiveness" of the review was not the same. Now, this part I am doing from memory, but essentially no liberal group was subject to scrutiny lasting more than six weeks. EVERY conservative group was and it lasted until it was leaked to the press and it continues to this day in many cases. And it will lead to a lawsuit and the conservative groups will win. My problem is that you are incapable of admitting simple facts while casting aspersions. I do not think that there are hundreds of leftie 501c4 groups. The problem is that the IRS illegally prevented the formation of conservative groups.

DomKen -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 5:05:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Latest review shows that, NO democrat groups were not subject to equal prosecution. As usual you're making up your own facts. What the Treasury IG says is not all progressive groups received the same scrutiny but the fact remains groups on both sides got the extra scrutiny. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/27/ways-and-means-irs-werfel-tea-party/2461573/ You even admitted as much in your first post. Your problem might be that you think there are hundreds of illegal 501(c)4 leftist groups like there are right wing ones. That is simply not the case. As usual, I am not. The IG says that not all progressive groups receive the same review. True. It also says 3/10 recieved scrutiny, While 10/10 of conservative groups received scrutiny. WHICH IS WHAT I SAID IN THE OPENING POST AND YOU DISPUTED. Additionally, the IG report said that the "comprehensiveness" of the review was not the same. Now, this part I am doing from memory, but essentially no liberal group was subject to scrutiny lasting more than six weeks. EVERY conservative group was and it lasted until it was leaked to the press and it continues to this day in many cases. And it will lead to a lawsuit and the conservative groups will win. My problem is that you are incapable of admitting simple facts while casting aspersions. I do not think that there are hundreds of leftie 501c4 groups. The problem is that the IRS illegally prevented the formation of conservative groups. The IRS did not prevent the formation of anything. They took a while to grant these groups a tax status they shouldn't have. So if there are not hundreds of liberal 501(c)4 groups then your complaint seems to be that when the IRS was deluged by applications for a status that certain conservative leaders, Rove, were recommending to these new tea party groups for the express purpose of hiding where the money was coming from to run these political operations that the IRS put these groups, which shouldn't have gotten the status even under the IRS's incorrect rule, under scrutiny but because lots of liberals did not try the same sleazy undemocratic tactic your side should have gotten preferential treatment. Personally I think every person who signed one of those applications should be prosecuted for tax fraud and those groups should all be removed from the 501(c)4 status.

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 5:07:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 This is what`s wrong with the republican/Obama-hate bubble....... They tend to repeat things that aren`t true......and never get the memo that they`re repeating garbage. One example......the IRS chief did not in fact visit the White House "more than 150 times". They were cleared(an advance process that ANYONE,accept gay-male hookers that moon-light as fake reporters to ask fake questions at bush new`s conferences like Jeff Gannon) to go to the White House, over a 150 times. The actual amount of visits to the White House made by the IRS chief (a bush appointee) was eleven. Not all official either. The rabid republicans are going to need more than dis-information and fibs to hurt the President. Just wrong. You really should get out of leftie echo chambers. Heres some citations: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/21/top-aide-to-former-irs-chief-reportedly-logged-hundreds-white-house-visits/ http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052813-657927-irs-heads-118-white-house-visits-suspicious.htm here's one from political acknowledging 39 visits solely for obamacare implimentation and dozens more for other purposes. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/doug-shulman-irs-white-house-visits-92087.html And there are well more than 75 documented in times - just as there are numerous documentations that he was present without a login time. (check is presence on the biweekly health care minutes). You and DomKen should really stop making the assumption that I am uninformed illiterate rabble rouser. I read more than 300 political articles a week from any news sources I find domestic and international. And I read a great deal more from daily kos, the beast media matters, than I do from conservative venues. You guys really should try reading some rightie rags. You might actually find out what conservatives think instead of making it up.

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 5:09:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Latest review shows that, NO democrat groups were not subject to equal prosecution. As usual you're making up your own facts. What the Treasury IG says is not all progressive groups received the same scrutiny but the fact remains groups on both sides got the extra scrutiny. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/27/ways-and-means-irs-werfel-tea-party/2461573/ You even admitted as much in your first post. Your problem might be that you think there are hundreds of illegal 501(c)4 leftist groups like there are right wing ones. That is simply not the case. As usual, I am not. The IG says that not all progressive groups receive the same review. True. It also says 3/10 recieved scrutiny, While 10/10 of conservative groups received scrutiny. WHICH IS WHAT I SAID IN THE OPENING POST AND YOU DISPUTED. Additionally, the IG report said that the "comprehensiveness" of the review was not the same. Now, this part I am doing from memory, but essentially no liberal group was subject to scrutiny lasting more than six weeks. EVERY conservative group was and it lasted until it was leaked to the press and it continues to this day in many cases. And it will lead to a lawsuit and the conservative groups will win. My problem is that you are incapable of admitting simple facts while casting aspersions. I do not think that there are hundreds of leftie 501c4 groups. The problem is that the IRS illegally prevented the formation of conservative groups. The IRS did not prevent the formation of anything. They took a while to grant these groups a tax status they shouldn't have. So if there are not hundreds of liberal 501(c)4 groups then your complaint seems to be that when the IRS was deluged by applications for a status that certain conservative leaders, Rove, were recommending to these new tea party groups for the express purpose of hiding where the money was coming from to run these political operations that the IRS put these groups, which shouldn't have gotten the status even under the IRS's incorrect rule, under scrutiny but because lots of liberals did not try the same sleazy undemocratic tactic your side should have gotten preferential treatment. Personally I think every person who signed one of those applications should be prosecuted for tax fraud and those groups should all be removed from the 501(c)4 status. Fortunately your uninformed opinions are not relevent. IN FACT there was no "deluge" of c(4) applications. Applications the year the comprehensive review started were FEWER than the previous year. Go look it up.

popeye1250 -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 5:13:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion Do Liberals really think if they spout pure bullshit like "The IRS scandal is not true!" That everyone will forget that the SAME IRS APOLIGIZED FOR PROFILING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS? I wonder why the IRS ADMITTED they profiled if they did not? Libs have a short attention span? Forgot about the IRS admission? Wasn't too long ago. And there's another problem, if the IRS targeted "progressive" groups then why is that just comming to light now? Where were they (6) weeks ago? I was watching Sean Hannity on FOX NEWS (Because the other,......Throne Sniffing networks won't talk about any of these scandals!) the other night and he had a congressman on who said that numerous investigators are interviewing people "at all levels" of the IRS. So, you know how they get once they're put under oath, this one starts squeeling on the other because they don't want to be "a convicted perjurer." So it looks like after a time we'll get to see a whole bunch of "perp walks." ("This can't be happening,....I went to YALE!") And any IRS employees found guilty of targeting Citizens or groups should get very long sentences like 30 years to make them an example. I'm not surprised that President Pantload hasn't said much about this. Oh, he's busy with Benghazzi and the state dept mess, ...isn't he? And probably that guy who keeps comming around to the White House,....157 times,....."for Easter egg hunts!

DomKen -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 5:17:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Latest review shows that, NO democrat groups were not subject to equal prosecution. As usual you're making up your own facts. What the Treasury IG says is not all progressive groups received the same scrutiny but the fact remains groups on both sides got the extra scrutiny. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/27/ways-and-means-irs-werfel-tea-party/2461573/ You even admitted as much in your first post. Your problem might be that you think there are hundreds of illegal 501(c)4 leftist groups like there are right wing ones. That is simply not the case. As usual, I am not. The IG says that not all progressive groups receive the same review. True. It also says 3/10 recieved scrutiny, While 10/10 of conservative groups received scrutiny. WHICH IS WHAT I SAID IN THE OPENING POST AND YOU DISPUTED. Additionally, the IG report said that the "comprehensiveness" of the review was not the same. Now, this part I am doing from memory, but essentially no liberal group was subject to scrutiny lasting more than six weeks. EVERY conservative group was and it lasted until it was leaked to the press and it continues to this day in many cases. And it will lead to a lawsuit and the conservative groups will win. My problem is that you are incapable of admitting simple facts while casting aspersions. I do not think that there are hundreds of leftie 501c4 groups. The problem is that the IRS illegally prevented the formation of conservative groups. The IRS did not prevent the formation of anything. They took a while to grant these groups a tax status they shouldn't have. So if there are not hundreds of liberal 501(c)4 groups then your complaint seems to be that when the IRS was deluged by applications for a status that certain conservative leaders, Rove, were recommending to these new tea party groups for the express purpose of hiding where the money was coming from to run these political operations that the IRS put these groups, which shouldn't have gotten the status even under the IRS's incorrect rule, under scrutiny but because lots of liberals did not try the same sleazy undemocratic tactic your side should have gotten preferential treatment. Personally I think every person who signed one of those applications should be prosecuted for tax fraud and those groups should all be removed from the 501(c)4 status. Fortunately your uninformed opinions are not relevent. IN FACT there was no "deluge" of c(4) applications. Applications the year the comprehensive review started were FEWER than the previous year. Go look it up. the groups doubled the number of applications submitted per year. That the criteria for extra scrutiny existed a few months before is irrelevant unless you are really trying to claim no one knew what was about to happen.

Owner59 -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 5:23:19 PM)
Funny thing is these dopes didn`t even have to apply for tax exempt 501C4 status......but they did anyway....... As explained by former FEC commissioner, republican election law expert and former campaign lawyer for the McCain-Palin campaign,Trevor Potter. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/426445/may-20-2013/mazda-scandal-booth---the-irs---trevor-potter

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 6:00:39 PM)
IN FACT there was no "deluge" of c(4) applications. Applications the year the comprehensive review started were FEWER than the previous year. Go look it up. [/quote] the groups doubled the number of applications submitted per year. That the criteria for extra scrutiny existed a few months before is irrelevant unless you are really trying to claim no one knew what was about to happen. [/quote] The "doubling" of applications was IRS spin that was shown to be false. Again, the number of applications decreased. As did the number of 501c(3) applications. If you look around you can find the actual numbers of applications. It supports what I say. But here's a general cite that makes the point http://philanthropy.com/article/IRS-Rationale-for-Tea-Party/139277/ The IRS then tried to say that it wasn't the number of applications, but the complexity of them. zzzzzzzzzzzzzing. The form didn't change. the only thing that changed was the IRS adding layer upon layer of complexity to delay the applications.

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 6:08:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Funny thing is these dopes didn`t even have to apply for tax exempt 501C4 status......but they did anyway....... As explained by former FEC commissioner, republican election law expert and former campaign lawyer for the McCain-Palin campaign,Trevor Potter. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/426445/may-20-2013/mazda-scandal-booth---the-irs---trevor-potter Uh. You mean the same report that says the IRS goofed and shouldn't have done it? Additionally, trevor potter says that tea party groups don't have to file. Thats true, but as usual, misleading. For donors to receive tax breaks for contributing to a 501c(4) they DO have to. Otherwise donations to the conservative groups would be TAXED.

BitYakin -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 6:48:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Because you are not a mind reader and cannot know when a group 'routinely intends' to break the law. Because the statute doesn't allow it? Because every person is afforded due process? You are sounding an awful lot like a Nazi. A very weird liberal nazi. If they protest at a clinic they are either engaging in political activity specifically disallowed by 501(c)3 or they will be breaking the FACE act and I am quite pleased we do not give tax exempt status to terrorists. WRONGGG, protesting abortion at a clinic is NOT nessicarily political activity! while the issue has been highly politicized, it is entierly possible for a group to be for and/or against abortion purely for MORAL and/or RELIGIOUS reasons just because politicians discuss an issue does not mean every single person only approves and/or disapproves of it for political reasons

Owner59 -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 6:59:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Funny thing is these dopes didn`t even have to apply for tax exempt 501C4 status......but they did anyway....... As explained by former FEC commissioner, republican election law expert and former campaign lawyer for the McCain-Palin campaign,Trevor Potter. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/426445/may-20-2013/mazda-scandal-booth---the-irs---trevor-potter Uh. You mean the same report that says the IRS goofed and shouldn't have done it? Additionally, trevor potter says that tea party groups don't have to file. Thats true, but as usual, misleading. For donors to receive tax breaks for contributing to a 501c(4) they DO have to. Otherwise donations to the conservative groups would be TAXED. Yeah, that guy.[;)] No one has ever denied that. Whatever. It`s the dopes trying to tie to the President that`s my fun time. These POS are getting it all over themselves....[:D] Just pointing out they didn`t even have to file.......ha ha. "Otherwise donations to the conservative groups would be TAXED." Not true,as Mr Potter said,a tax exempt 501C4 (look up what he words tax exempt mean) does NOT have to file..... Pretty simple/ I could probably get it translated into another language of your choice but I`m sure how much google translator would mash things up.

Owner59 -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 7:03:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Because you are not a mind reader and cannot know when a group 'routinely intends' to break the law. Because the statute doesn't allow it? Because every person is afforded due process? You are sounding an awful lot like a Nazi. A very weird liberal nazi. If they protest at a clinic they are either engaging in political activity specifically disallowed by 501(c)3 or they will be breaking the FACE act and I am quite pleased we do not give tax exempt status to terrorists. WRONGGG, protesting abortion at a clinic is NOT nessicarily political activity! while the issue has been highly politicized, it is entierly possible for a group to be for and/or against abortion purely for MORAL and/or RELIGIOUS reasons just because politicians discuss an issue does not mean every single person only approves and/or disapproves of it for political reasons So for today......the talking points memo says to argue FOR a wall of separation...... Check.

DomKen -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 8:52:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux The "doubling" of applications was IRS spin that was shown to be false. Again, the number of applications decreased. As did the number of 501c(3) applications. If you look around you can find the actual numbers of applications. It supports what I say. But here's a general cite that makes the point http://philanthropy.com/article/IRS-Rationale-for-Tea-Party/139277/ The IRS then tried to say that it wasn't the number of applications, but the complexity of them. zzzzzzzzzzzzzing. The form didn't change. the only thing that changed was the IRS adding layer upon layer of complexity to delay the applications. 2010 1735 2011 2265 2012 3357 So yes there was a deluge and yes the number per year did almost double. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/07/tim-griffin/no-rise-applications-triggered-irs-actions-says-ti/

DomKen -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 8:54:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Funny thing is these dopes didn`t even have to apply for tax exempt 501C4 status......but they did anyway....... As explained by former FEC commissioner, republican election law expert and former campaign lawyer for the McCain-Palin campaign,Trevor Potter. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/426445/may-20-2013/mazda-scandal-booth---the-irs---trevor-potter Uh. You mean the same report that says the IRS goofed and shouldn't have done it? Additionally, trevor potter says that tea party groups don't have to file. Thats true, but as usual, misleading. For donors to receive tax breaks for contributing to a 501c(4) they DO have to. Otherwise donations to the conservative groups would be TAXED. No donor gets a tax break for donating to a 501(c)4 organization. Tax deductions are only for donations to 501(c)3 organizations. the reason to organize as a 501(c)4 is so they can keep their donors secret.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.347656E-02