While the IRS was busy screwing the TP

[Mainecoons]

They were busy teaching black preachers how to talk politics with their congregations.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/13/eric-holder-irs-officials-coached-tax-exempt-black-ministers-on-how-to-engage-in-political-activity/

[ptif219]

They were busy teaching black preachers how to talk politics with their congregations.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/13/eric-holder-irs-officials-coached-tax-exempt-black-ministers-on-how-to-engage-in-political-activity/





More corruption that Obama will deny knowing anything about

[fyrenza]

How fucking deep does this shit need to GET,

pardon my cursing,

before it's a revolution, and EVERYONE just says NO to the dry reaming???

pardon the allusion.

[Agravan]

The lefties here on this forum basically say we have to just suck it up because the government can do no wrong.

[fyrenza]

Everyone has to "put up with" lies, and cheating, and perversion, and, and, and

because the gov is some whack-group's idea of god?

... And ^THAT^ passes any litmus test for validity??? tsk, tsk, tsk

[midcan5]

People attended a conference and talked about issues that concern the people at the conference, and now because the right wing in America is a brain washed bunch of whiny children, this is news on which they all comment like schoolyard morons. The IRS went after the so called left or liberal organizations in America too. Everyone cheats, surely you wingnuts are not all twelve and think goodness only surrounds certain labels? Wacko Issa sure has managed to waste money and keep the fools at the edge of seat ready for more non-news while critical issues go by the wayside. Only in America....

"....[C]ongressional Democrats released a document showing that IRS agents targeted groups with "progressive" in their names. "Common thread is the word 'progressive,'" the November 2010 IRS document says. "Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican."


"... The Associated Press said that besides ''progressive," lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination included the terms ''Israel'' and ''Occupy.'' The AP said an investigation into why specific terms were included was underway."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/24/irs-tea-party-targeting-report-werfel/2452935/

[jillian]

They were busy teaching black preachers how to talk politics with their congregations.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/13/eric-holder-irs-officials-coached-tax-exempt-black-ministers-on-how-to-engage-in-political-activity/




yeah, those republicans running the IRS office really screwed the tea party.

:cuckoo:

[Mainecoons]

Cuckoo is right. Try reading the link once in a while.

Deny, deny, deny. Doesn't change a thing.

[midcan5]

I read the link - usual nonsense from the right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-chafing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html


"How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?'


'The Real I.R.S. Scandal' Posted By Jeffrey Toobin


"It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.


If that definition sounds murky—that is, if it’s unclear what 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to do—that’s because it is murky. Particularly leading up to the 2012 elections, many conservative organizations, nominally 501(c)(4)s, were all but explicitly political in their work. For example, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the Koch Brothers, was an instrumental force in helping the Republicans hold the House of Representatives. In every meaningful sense, groups like Americans for Prosperity were operating as units of the Republican Party. Democrats organized similar operations, but on a much smaller scale. (They undoubtedly would have done more, but they lacked the Republican base for funding such efforts.)"




http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-scandal-tea-party-oversight.html

[patrickt]

It's not like that's all they did. The DOJ helped the lynch mob organize rallies against George Zimmerman. Sadly, the most racist, in my opinion, administration since President F. D. Roosevelt is running true to form.

And, Cuckoo, doesn't read anything. She doesn't have to. She's one of the faithful. I do think her new signature block is appropriate, though.

[Mainecoons]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Wilson's regime was more racist than Roosevelt's.

And, of course, the IRS was under the control of Republicans in 2012. Of course.

Cuckoo doesn't begin to describe your posting here, Jillian.

[patrickt]

I said, since FDR. President Grant, the last president to have a slave in the White House, was probably more racist Wilson or Roosevelt. And, President Obama beats even racists like President L.B. Johnson

[Mainecoons]

I read the link - usual nonsense from the right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-chafing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html


"How is the IRS supposed to vet 501(c)(4) groups, anyway?'


'The Real I.R.S. Scandal' Posted By Jeffrey Toobin


"It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.


If that definition sounds murky—that is, if it’s unclear what 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to do—that’s because it is murky. Particularly leading up to the 2012 elections, many conservative organizations, nominally 501(c)(4)s, were all but explicitly political in their work. For example, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the Koch Brothers, was an instrumental force in helping the Republicans hold the House of Representatives. In every meaningful sense, groups like Americans for Prosperity were operating as units of the Republican Party. Democrats organized similar operations, but on a much smaller scale. (They undoubtedly would have done more, but they lacked the Republican base for funding such efforts.)"




http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-scandal-tea-party-oversight.html

Too bad you didn't understand the topic or address it. The topic is that the government specifically coached black preachers how to avoid IRS problems while they used their pulpits to campaign for Barack Obama.

As for the Tea Party, you can deny all you want but it is well established at this point that they were singled out for special treatment and obstruction before the 2012 election. But that is not the topic here. Care to address the topic?

BTW, your obviously biased reference from the even more obviously biased NYT names a couple of groups and tries to pretend that covered the hundreds of TP groups that were discriminated against by the IRS. This is very typical liberal journalism and I'm not the least bit surprised you got suckered by it.

[jillian]

I said, since FDR. President Grant, the last president to have a slave in the White House, was probably more racist Wilson or Roosevelt. And, President Obama beats even racists like President L.B. Johnson

only in rightwingnuthackworld

[jillian]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Wilson's regime was more racist than Roosevelt's.

And, of course, the IRS was under the control of Republicans in 2012. Of course.

Cuckoo doesn't begin to describe your posting here, Jillian.


we don't have "regimes". we have presidencies. i know that you'll say absolutely anything regardless of whether or not it has any basis in reality. but your o/p is facially untrue...

thanks for playing. and anyone with a brain knows that your posts are the ones that are cuckoo.

[Mainecoons]

Wow, your intellectual response here is really impressive--for a retarded person.

Not to worry, Midcan is following you around. Neither of you seems to want to address the topic.

[Mainecoons]

we don't have "regimes". we have presidencies. i know that you'll say absolutely anything regardless of whether or not it has any basis in reality. but your o/p is facially untrue...

thanks for playing. and anyone with a brain knows that your posts are the ones that are cuckoo.

OK, let's see your rebuttal. Link us to a credible site that shows the IRS did not do what the citation says they did.

What, no rebuttal again? Just have to change the topic? Like whining about the word "regime?" You might want to look that up. The first thing you'll find is that it is a government. Not a presidency. A presidency isn't a government. Even though Barack Obama is trying his best to be one.

:grin:

[patrickt]

Changing the subject and distraction is all that available for supporters of the regime. Regime: a ruling or prevailing system. A government in power.

Liberals not only think they can highjack any thread with lies, distraction, and changing the subject but they think they can define all words to mean what they say they mean and nothing more and nothing less. Say hello to Alice and the Queen of Hearts.

The system in Washington is designed to keep liberal bureaucrats in power regardless of the regime. When we have the army of liberals, with both houses of Congress liberals, and a racist socialist in the White House, it's loony-tunes time.

[Chris]

People attended a conference and talked about issues that concern the people at the conference, and now because the right wing in America is a brain washed bunch of whiny children, this is news on which they all comment like schoolyard morons. The IRS went after the so called left or liberal organizations in America too. Everyone cheats, surely you wingnuts are not all twelve and think goodness only surrounds certain labels? Wacko Issa sure has managed to waste money and keep the fools at the edge of seat ready for more non-news while critical issues go by the wayside. Only in America....

"....[C]ongressional Democrats released a document showing that IRS agents targeted groups with "progressive" in their names. "Common thread is the word 'progressive,'" the November 2010 IRS document says. "Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican."


"... The Associated Press said that besides ''progressive," lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination included the terms ''Israel'' and ''Occupy.'' The AP said an investigation into why specific terms were included was underway."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/24/irs-tea-party-targeting-report-werfel/2452935/



You're criticisms might be more effective if they weren't so rude and crude. Calling others wingnuts makes you a wingnut and doesn't really say much about others other than you disagree. It leads to you overlooking if not defending the fact that if the IRS also targeted progressives they were violating the role just the same as with Tea parties. What, do you really think two wrongs make a right?

[Chris]

only in rightwingnuthackworld



Which vacuous trolling only places you in the leftwingnuthackworld, same as midcan.

[Chris]

we don't have "regimes". we have presidencies. i know that you'll say absolutely anything regardless of whether or not it has any basis in reality. but your o/p is facially untrue...

thanks for playing. and anyone with a brain knows that your posts are the ones that are cuckoo.



Wonderful bit of well poisoning, jillian!!

http://i.snag.gy/6NRD2.jpg

Sign of a weak argument. Of course we have presidencies, but we also speak in metaphors, like regimes, to make a point that our presidencies are often like regimes. --What am I doing explaining basic English!

[ptif219]

People attended a conference and talked about issues that concern the people at the conference, and now because the right wing in America is a brain washed bunch of whiny children, this is news on which they all comment like schoolyard morons. The IRS went after the so called left or liberal organizations in America too. Everyone cheats, surely you wingnuts are not all twelve and think goodness only surrounds certain labels? Wacko Issa sure has managed to waste money and keep the fools at the edge of seat ready for more non-news while critical issues go by the wayside. Only in America....

"....[C]ongressional Democrats released a document showing that IRS agents targeted groups with "progressive" in their names. "Common thread is the word 'progressive,'" the November 2010 IRS document says. "Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican."


"... The Associated Press said that besides ''progressive," lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination included the terms ''Israel'' and ''Occupy.'' The AP said an investigation into why specific terms were included was underway."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/24/irs-tea-party-targeting-report-werfel/2452935/

Nice spin but irrelevant. There very few liberal groups checked and they were passed while TP groups waited years

[Mainecoons]

BTW, the applications that were being held up were for 501c3. Same thing the liberal groups asked for and got very quickly.

And none of that has anything to do with the topic. Neither do Midcan's posts. Just simple minded and quite obvious diversion since he can't address this particularly story.