Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:16:20
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
azazel the cat wrote:I'm not so sure you should be ascribing motivation so freely. For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason, rather than their criticisms of Obama. I think you should get some more facts before assuming you understand the why of it.
Unless there was evidence to raise suspicion of wrong doing in respect of each group then no one should be targeted for their opinions or connections, provided same are lawful.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:19:33
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:26:43
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Ouze wrote: sebster wrote:I mean, move away from the Tea Party and just think about the GOP as a whole - most of them have problems with paying tax, so why not go after everyone on Grover Norquist's pledge?
Not that this is at all what you said, but I'd also like to point out it's a hell of a lot different to lobby for lower taxes then it is to break existing tax laws. For example when Warren Buffet was saying he'd like to raise taxes on his bracket and end some tax loopholes, people pointed out he himself used some loopholes and so was hence a hypocrite. Not so - there is nothing wrong with following the rules as written while simultaneously pointing out the rules could work better.
I think the Obama administration needs to go totally hardcore on this, like, today. A press conference, an investigation, and apology to those who were targeted - all that. I know they're worried about supplying the opposition with sound bites but, you know, they're not going to be on Team O no matter what you do so clean house as appropriate.
I have no reason to think otherwise then what has since been reported - this was some low level flunkies doing it on their own initiative. It matters not - the buck stops higher than that, if for no other reason than that for some reason the corporate culture at this office somehow made these guys feel empowered to do it.
Like this:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/politics/irs-conservative-targeting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama vowed Monday to hold the Internal Revenue Service accountable if reports of political targeting are proved true.
"If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous. And there's no place for it," Obama told reporters.
"And they have to be held fully accountable. Because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that they're ... applying the laws in a nonpartisan way."
Obama said he learned of the allegations through news reports on Friday.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:29:23
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
Glad to see that it is being taken seriously. Hopefully the action will match the words
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:30:42
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
|
Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:I'm not so sure you should be ascribing motivation so freely. For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason, rather than their criticisms of Obama. I think you should get some more facts before assuming you understand the why of it.
Unless there was evidence to raise suspicion of wrong doing in respect of each group then no one should be targeted for their opinions or connections, provided same are lawful.
Oh, I'm not defending the actions; far from it. I'm merely stating that it's a bad idea to assume the reason for the targeting is because they crtiticized Obama. There are myriad reasons that these groups may have been unfairly targeted, so I do not understand why, outside of silly conspiracy theories, Whembly assumed the default motivation to target the groups was "they don't like Obama". Ascribing motivation prior before seeing the pathway the evidence points is the best way to taint and invalidate an investigation.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:34:41
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
azazel the cat wrote:Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:I'm not so sure you should be ascribing motivation so freely. For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason, rather than their criticisms of Obama. I think you should get some more facts before assuming you understand the why of it.
Unless there was evidence to raise suspicion of wrong doing in respect of each group then no one should be targeted for their opinions or connections, provided same are lawful.
Oh, I'm not defending the actions; far from it. I'm merely stating that it's a bad idea to assume the reason for the targeting is because they crtiticized Obama. There are myriad reasons that these groups may have been unfairly targeted, so I do not understand why, outside of silly conspiracy theories, Whembly assumed the default motivation to target the groups was "they don't like Obama". Ascribing motivation prior before seeing the pathway the evidence points is the best way to taint and invalidate an investigation.
Well... it's not hard to think that...
Did you forget about Joe the Plummer already?
So is it THAT much of a stretch?
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:36:36
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
It may not have been opponents of Obama specifically, just any conservative group that was of a vocal anti-big government viewpoint.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:39:05
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Looking through the news, it does make a little bit more sense why there was an increased scrutiny in non-profit applications:
After the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling it became a lot easier to shuffle around anonymous money to political campaigns. And after that ruling the number of applications exploded as groups were taking advantage of the new way to shuffle money around for political donations and spending.
So it makes sense that non-profit applications deserved extra scrutiny, but there needs to be a fair way to do it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:40:23
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama vowed Monday to hold the Internal Revenue Service accountable if reports of political targeting are proved true.
"If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous. And there's no place for it," Obama told reporters.
"And they have to be held fully accountable. Because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that they're ... applying the laws in a nonpartisan way."
Obama said he learned of the allegations through news reports on Friday.
talk talk talk talk.
Who's been fired?
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:41:28
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
That is disgusting. So on my next tax return will I have to provide a statement with my opinion on the Troubles because I'm a Catholic from Northern Ireland?
Will you be filing as a nonprofit organization?
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Anyone taking part in this, any supervisor/manager/etc. who knew and turned a blind eye all need to be held to account for their actions and there needs to be a culture change within the organisation to prevent these abuses from happening again.
I don't agree. In the US political activity is a major issue regarding whether or not a given organization can be considered a particular type of nonprofit, so its pretty much a forgone conclusion that organizations applying for nonprofit status will be questioned regarding their political beliefs.
The only issue is if certain organizations were targeted for specific political beliefs, but even that is nothing more than a weakness in the tax code itself (I could go on for days about how much I hate the 501 section of the tax code).
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:42:41
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Death-Dealing Devastator
|
d-usa wrote:Looking through the news, it does make a little bit more sense why there was an increased scrutiny in non-profit applications:
After the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling it became a lot easier to shuffle around anonymous money to political campaigns. And after that ruling the number of applications exploded as groups were taking advantage of the new way to shuffle money around for political donations and spending.
So it makes sense that non-profit applications deserved extra scrutiny, but there needs to be a fair way to do it.
It would make even more sense if groups on the other side of the aisle had also been targeted. Not quite the way it worked out. Trying to pin the blame on Citizens United does seem to be the play, however.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:45:33
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
d-usa wrote:
After the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling it became a lot easier to shuffle around anonymous money to political campaigns.
Personally, I'm waiting to see what happens when the 501(c)(3) classification gets challenged by a Church claiming it has the right to free speech.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 18:49:47
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
dogma wrote:I don't agree. In the US political activity is a major issue regarding whether or not a given organization can be considered a particular type of nonprofit, so its pretty much a forgone conclusion that organizations applying for nonprofit status will be questioned regarding their political beliefs.
The only issue is if certain organizations were targeted for specific political beliefs, but even that is nothing more than a weakness in the tax code itself (I could go on for days about how much I hate the 501 section of the tax code).
Be that as it may its clear that the scrutiney that these groups were under went above and beyond what might be considered reasonable questioning. The IRS has confirmed as much itself.
"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
"In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"
"Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.
"That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner she heads the [RS division that oversees tax-exempt groups] said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association."
"Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.
The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members."
"As part of this process, agents in Cincinnati came up with a list of things to look for in an application. As part of the list, they included the words, "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said.
"It's the line people that did it without talking to managers," Lerner told The AP. "They're IRS workers, they're revenue agents.""
Now add in the accusation that this was occurring in more than one office and the idea that this was reasonable investigation cannot be sustained.
azazel the cat wrote:Oh, I'm not defending the actions; far from it. I'm merely stating that it's a bad idea to assume the reason for the targeting is because they crtiticized Obama. There are myriad reasons that these groups may have been unfairly targeted, so I do not understand why, outside of silly conspiracy theories, Whembly assumed the default motivation to target the groups was "they don't like Obama". Ascribing motivation prior before seeing the pathway the evidence points is the best way to taint and invalidate an investigation.
Glad to hear, because criticising someone for speculating on motive, then offering your own speculation can come across in a less than constructive manner
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:08:50
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
|
whembly wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:I'm not so sure you should be ascribing motivation so freely. For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason, rather than their criticisms of Obama. I think you should get some more facts before assuming you understand the why of it.
Unless there was evidence to raise suspicion of wrong doing in respect of each group then no one should be targeted for their opinions or connections, provided same are lawful.
Oh, I'm not defending the actions; far from it. I'm merely stating that it's a bad idea to assume the reason for the targeting is because they crtiticized Obama. There are myriad reasons that these groups may have been unfairly targeted, so I do not understand why, outside of silly conspiracy theories, Whembly assumed the default motivation to target the groups was "they don't like Obama". Ascribing motivation prior before seeing the pathway the evidence points is the best way to taint and invalidate an investigation.
Well... it's not hard to think that...
Did you forget about Joe the Plummer already?
So is it THAT much of a stretch?
it's easy to think that because you're projecting. That doesn't mean you're wrong, mind you. It just means you're jumping to the easy conclusion, which is a dangerous habit.
And actually, I never heard about the Joe the Plummer bit. Whenever that guy's name came up I tuned everything out, as he was the mascot for pandering to the uninformed.
Frazzled wrote:
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama vowed Monday to hold the Internal Revenue Service accountable if reports of political targeting are proved true.
"If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous. And there's no place for it," Obama told reporters.
"And they have to be held fully accountable. Because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that they're ... applying the laws in a nonpartisan way."
Obama said he learned of the allegations through news reports on Friday.
talk talk talk talk.
Who's been fired?
Who's been determined to be directly accountable yet, and given a fair hearing?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Oh, I'm not defending the actions; far from it. I'm merely stating that it's a bad idea to assume the reason for the targeting is because they crtiticized Obama. There are myriad reasons that these groups may have been unfairly targeted, so I do not understand why, outside of silly conspiracy theories, Whembly assumed the default motivation to target the groups was "they don't like Obama". Ascribing motivation prior before seeing the pathway the evidence points is the best way to taint and invalidate an investigation.
Glad to hear, because criticising someone for speculating on motive, then offering your own speculation can come across in a less than constructive manner
What, exactly, was my own speculation?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:20:47
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
azazel the cat wrote:
And actually, I never heard about the Joe the Plummer bit. Whenever that guy's name came up I tuned everything out, as he was the mascot for pandering to the uninformed.
Just google-fu good ol' Joe and you'll see numerous sites analysing that "Share the wealth" statement.
Combine the statement, "when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." and Obama's propensity to redistribute wealth in general:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ge3aGJfDSg4
It's not that hard to add 2+2=4 with things like this.
The point is, it's awfully suspicious man.
I mean... this is really the issue summed up here:
"A bedrock principle of U.S. democracy is that the coercive powers of government are never used for partisan purpose. The law is blind to political viewpoint, and so are its enforcers, most especially the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service. Any violation of this principle threatens the trust and the voluntary cooperation of citizens upon which this democracy depends. So it was appalling to learn Friday that the IRS had improperly targeted conservative groups for scrutiny. It was almost as disturbing that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have not personally apologized to the American people and promised a full investigation."
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:28:17
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
This is to what I was referring
azazel the cat wrote:For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:32:18
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan
|
dogma wrote:Personally, I'm waiting to see what happens when the 501(c)(3) classification gets challenged by a Church claiming it has the right to free speech.
I think you're going to be waiting a while for that. The IRS has shown no interest whatsoever in sacking up for that fight, for fear they lose.
|
lord_blackfang wrote:Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote:The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:34:42
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
[i]"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
I see no problem there. Those are blatantly political terms and 501(c)(4)s are not permitted to engage, primarily, in political activity.
From a political standpoint I think they should have used a bit of obfuscation, but I understand the choice of terminology; particularly given the proliferation of conservative 501(c)(4)s in the last 3 years.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"
No, no it doesn't. 501(c)(4)s are unique in that they do not have to disclose their donors, but every other nonprofit classification has to submit a list of donors.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.
And yet the tax code essentially requires that they do so.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:36:43
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan
|
azazel the cat wrote:And actually, I never heard about the Joe the Plummer bit. Whenever that guy's name came up I tuned everything out, as he was the mascot for pandering to the uninformed.
Yeah, he was a guy who wasn't actually named Joe, who wasn't actually a plumber, who was upset that his taxes might go up (they actually would not have) if he might buy a business he wasn't actually going to buy.
You didn't miss much, frankly.
|
lord_blackfang wrote:Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote:The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:40:01
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Valion wrote: d-usa wrote:Looking through the news, it does make a little bit more sense why there was an increased scrutiny in non-profit applications:
After the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling it became a lot easier to shuffle around anonymous money to political campaigns. And after that ruling the number of applications exploded as groups were taking advantage of the new way to shuffle money around for political donations and spending.
So it makes sense that non-profit applications deserved extra scrutiny, but there needs to be a fair way to do it.
It would make even more sense if groups on the other side of the aisle had also been targeted. Not quite the way it worked out. Trying to pin the blame on Citizens United does seem to be the play, however.
Which is what I said.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:40:04
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
dogma wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:
[i]"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
I see no problem there. Those are blatantly political terms and 501(c)(4)s are not permitted to engage, primarily, in political activity.
From a political standpoint I think they should have used a bit of obfuscation, but I understand the choice of terminology; particularly given the proliferation of conservative 501(c)(4)s in the last 3 years.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"
No, no it doesn't. 501(c)(4)s are unique in that they do not have to disclose their donors, but every other nonprofit classification has to submit a list of donors.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.
And yet the tax code essentially requires that they do so.
Are you saying that the IRS was mistaken and that these groups were not unfairly targetted? That the head of the section responsible was incorrect in what she said?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:44:15
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
|
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
This is to what I was referring
azazel the cat wrote:For all you know, Tea Partiers were targeted due to their allegiance to the Koch brothers or any other reason.
Yeah, you really need to stop trying so hard to catch me contradicting myself. You've been unable to yet, and your desire to do so appears to be greatly interfering with your ability to read things in context. You've kinda gone all Ahab now.
When someone says: "you should not speculate the motive; for all you know the motive could be many other things, such as..." that person is not putting forward that the answer is on of those examples; he is merely demonstrating that there is the potential for many answers, none of which are any more valid than others as yet.
This was obvious to every other person here. (<--- now that is a speculation, but it's probably true)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:49:25
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
azazel the cat wrote:Yeah, you really need to stop trying so hard to catch me contradicting myself. You've been unable to yet, and your desire to do so appears to be greatly interfering with your ability to read things in context. You've kinda gone all Ahab now.
When someone says: "you should not speculate the motive; for all you know the motive could be many other things, such as..." that person is not putting forward that the answer is on of those examples; he is merely demonstrating that there is the potential for many answers, none of which are any more valid than others as yet.
This was obvious to every other person here. (<--- now that is a speculation, but it's probably true)
That is not my intention, but please do not let that prohibit you from inferring otherwise as you are wont to do.
BTW everyone here is speculating to a greater or lesser extent. Not everyone is chiding others for doing so though
Speculate - Form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:50:46
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Battlefield Tourist
MN (Currently in WY)
|
I hav eread a few articles claiming that because of this and Benghazi the administration won't be able to gain any Republican support for its objectives on the Budget front, as these incidents have the base riled up.
The Repubs would not be able to explain to their consitutents that the Obamam Administrations wasn't trying to screw them in any "grand bargain" on the budget.
My thought was; where have these people been the last five years? These incidents change nothing regarding Republicans assisting the Administration in its "grand bargain" agenda.
|
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:52:06
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
|
@Dreadclaw69: I suppose I just have begun to find it tiresome to constantly explain everything a second time for you specifically, which has been the case of late.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/13 19:52:46
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:54:34
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
azazel the cat wrote:@Dreadclaw69: I suppose I just have begun to find it tiresome to constantly explain everything a second time for you specifically, which has been the case of late.
I would dispute that given the events in other threads, but that would be taking us away from the topic at hand.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:56:52
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Battlefield Tourist
MN (Currently in WY)
|
@Azazel and Dreadclaw- You guys need to get a room already. I can feel the RomCom style tension between you from across the internet.
|
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:57:50
Subject: Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 19:58:24
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
|
Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:@Dreadclaw69: I suppose I just have begun to find it tiresome to constantly explain everything a second time for you specifically, which has been the case of late.
I would dispute that given the events in other threads, but that would be taking us away from the topic at hand.
A fair point.
Back on track here, I think it was Dogma that suggested the conservative groups were not unfairly targeted- this is perhaps a good point, depending on what the claims submitted from the groups entailed. That is, any tax-exempt group that included terms like "tea party" and "patriot" likely would have hit some radar, as those terms are politically charged and thus would immediately alert suspicions as to the tax-exempt status of the group.
The real question that puts forward, then, should be whether it was just tax-exempt groups who were targeted (which is good) or if it was any group with those keywords, regardless of their application for tax exemption or not (this would be not so good)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/13 20:02:37
Subject: Re:Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
azazel the cat wrote:Dreadclaw69 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:@Dreadclaw69: I suppose I just have begun to find it tiresome to constantly explain everything a second time for you specifically, which has been the case of late.
I would dispute that given the events in other threads, but that would be taking us away from the topic at hand.
A fair point.
Back on track here, I think it was Dogma that suggested the conservative groups were not unfairly targeted- this is perhaps a good point, depending on what the claims submitted from the groups entailed. That is, any tax-exempt group that included terms like "tea party" and "patriot" likely would have hit some radar, as those terms are politically charged and thus would immediately alert suspicions as to the tax-exempt status of the group.
The real question that puts forward, then, should be whether it was just tax-exempt groups who were targeted (which is good) or if it was any group with those keywords, regardless of their application for tax exemption or not (this would be not so good)
Then why did the IRS apologize in the first place?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/13 20:03:01
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
|