IRS - Selective Prosecution (Full Version)

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



Message


Phydeaux -> IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 5:26:57 PM)

292 conservative groups.
6 progressive ones.

Yeah. There was no selective prosecution.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-irs-targeted-292-tea-party-groups-just-6-progressive-groups/article/2532456#.UcxF0ZDCznc.twitter




DomKen -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 5:35:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

292 conservative groups.
6 progressive ones.

Yeah. There was no selective prosecution.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-irs-targeted-292-tea-party-groups-just-6-progressive-groups/article/2532456#.UcxF0ZDCznc.twitter

There was no selective prosecution because there was no prosecution!




Lucylastic -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 5:40:42 PM)

LOLOLOLOLOL again withthe facts




BitYakin -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 5:43:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

292 conservative groups.
6 progressive ones.

Yeah. There was no selective prosecution.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-irs-targeted-292-tea-party-groups-just-6-progressive-groups/article/2532456#.UcxF0ZDCznc.twitter

There was no selective prosecution because there was no prosecution!

Maybe it was a typo and the correct word was meant to be persecution?




Kirata -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 5:50:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

Maybe it was a typo and the correct word was meant to be persecution?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!

K.




DomKen -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 5:53:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

Maybe it was a typo and the correct word was meant to be persecution?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!

K.


How does "Yeah, there was no selective persecution" make sense? Are you inventing your own reality again? He meant prosecution and he was wrong.




dcnovice -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 5:54:37 PM)

quote:

the correct word was meant to be persecution?

Possibly.

But to anyone familiar with the actual persecutions that shadow human history, the word's use in this context is more than a little melodramatic.




Kirata -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 5:54:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

He meant prosecution

These kinds of claims are of no practical use. Post winning lottery numbers.

K.









Kirata -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 5:59:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

But to anyone familiar with the actual persecutions that shadow human history, the word's use in this context is more than a little melodramatic.

Actually, it's perfectly correct.

per·se·cute
1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
2. to annoy or trouble persistently.


K.




dcnovice -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 6:04:16 PM)

quote:

I don't think that's true at all.

Probably best to agree to disagree on this one.




DomKen -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 6:06:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

But to anyone familiar with the actual persecutions that shadow human history, the word's use in this context is more than a little melodramatic.

Actually, it's perfectly correct.

per·se·cute
1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
2. to annoy or trouble persistently.


K.


Sending an organization a letter asking for more information is persecution? Is that really your position?




Lucylastic -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 6:09:38 PM)

LOL he should make damn sure he gets his spelling right then dontcha think? seeing as he smelt it rong twyce....




DaddySatyr -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 6:10:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

But to anyone familiar with the actual persecutions that shadow human history, the word's use in this context is more than a little melodramatic.

Actually, it's perfectly correct.

per·se·cute
1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
2. to annoy or trouble persistently.


K.



Logic and fact brought into a debate? I think I may have to report this or mark the calendar or something. How dare you, sir?!




MrRodgers -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 6:14:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

But to anyone familiar with the actual persecutions that shadow human history, the word's use in this context is more than a little melodramatic.

Actually, it's perfectly correct.

per·se·cute
1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
2. to annoy or trouble persistently.


K.


Sending an organization a letter asking for more information is persecution? Is that really your position?

For 30 plus years, to question anything from the right...is persecution. Hell hath no furry like a repub scorned.




DaddySatyr -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 6:17:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

For 30 plus years, to question anything from the right...is persecution. Hell hath no furry like a repub scorned.



That might be because for roughly the same amount of time, questioning the lefties makes one a "fat old white man (I apologize, Justice Thomas)" and a racist and someone that wants peoples' grandmothers to eat dogfood and ...




MrRodgers -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 6:21:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

But to anyone familiar with the actual persecutions that shadow human history, the word's use in this context is more than a little melodramatic.

Actually, it's perfectly correct.

per·se·cute
1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
2. to annoy or trouble persistently.


K.



Logic and fact brought into a debate? I think I may have to report this or mark the calendar or something. How dare you, sir?!

...and yet they were going by their names. I got one for all of nit-pickers...how about 'Americans for the Truth.' Funding to come off Pinocchio's taxes.

Better would be like the tea baggers... "Americans for Tax Justice" Funded by GE, Exxon, Apple, and maybe the remaining 497 of the Fortune 500.




Kirata -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 7:15:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Sending an organization a letter asking for more information is persecution? Is that really your position?

If that was what I said, then it would be my position. Otherwise, it would be you making shit up.

K.




BitYakin -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 7:31:31 PM)

quote:

Sending an organization a letter asking for more information is persecution? Is that really your position?


I guess you missed the article where the irs sent one pro life org, a letter telling them if they promised in writing to not picket and/or protest at planned parenthood they'd grant them thier tax exempt status

where I come from thats called extortion at least and blackmail at worst, but I also think it falls under the heading of persecution!

and BTW when you select one group to send letters asking for more info and not ALL OTHER groups asking for the same info, yeahhh that ALSO falls under the heading of persecution!




DomKen -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 7:38:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

Sending an organization a letter asking for more information is persecution? Is that really your position?


I guess you missed the article where the irs sent one pro life org, a letter telling them if they promised in writing to not picket and/or protest at planned parenthood they'd grant them thier tax exempt status

where I come from thats called extortion at least and blackmail at worst, but I also think it falls under the heading of persecution!

and BTW when you select one group to send letters asking for more info and not ALL OTHER groups asking for the same info, yeahhh that ALSO falls under the heading of persecution!

That was a group applying for 501(c)3 status and that requires that the organization do these and only these things
quote:

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

Political protesting is not allowed.

Anyway the supposed scandal is about scrutiny of 501(c)4 applications.




BitYakin -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/27/2013 8:00:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

Sending an organization a letter asking for more information is persecution? Is that really your position?


I guess you missed the article where the irs sent one pro life org, a letter telling them if they promised in writing to not picket and/or protest at planned parenthood they'd grant them thier tax exempt status

where I come from thats called extortion at least and blackmail at worst, but I also think it falls under the heading of persecution!

and BTW when you select one group to send letters asking for more info and not ALL OTHER groups asking for the same info, yeahhh that ALSO falls under the heading of persecution!

That was a group applying for 501(c)3 status and that requires that the organization do these and only these things
quote:

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

Political protesting is not allowed.

Anyway the supposed scandal is about scrutiny of 501(c)4 applications.


even though many have politicized the pro life/choice issue, I am SURE many who are involved on both sides of the issue would say they are "defending human and civil rights" of unborn and female citizens, sooo I think that means they qualify

and I read nothing in there that says thier constitutional rights to peacably assemble or free speech were suspended by asking for and/or being granted that status




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875