IRS Targeted 292 Tea Party groups, Just 6 progressive Groups

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2013 5:20 PM GMT
    Here's something you won't see on "thinkprogress" or MSNBC or any of the other biased lefty sites so often posted here:


    Refuting Democratic suggestions that progressive groups were also swept up in the IRS probe of the tax status of Tea Party organizations, the Treasury Department's inspector general has revealed that just six progressive groups were targeted compared to 292 conservative groups.


    http://washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-irs-targeted-292-tea-party-groups-just-6-progressive-groups/article/2532456
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2013 8:54 PM GMT
    But that is just fine and dandy because to the left, the end justifies ANY means.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2013 2:18 AM GMT
    3631993673_obama_shh_xlarge.jpeg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2013 12:53 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidBut that is just fine and dandy because to the left, the end justifies ANY means.

    Or maybe there were fewer progressive groups who sole goal was to elect a tea bagging right winger?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2013 1:35 PM GMT
    So it's ok to be left but not right? Do we no longer have civil liberties for certain groups of people because they're not popular with the elites? One must be consistent in one's beliefs, double standards = discrimination.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 29, 2013 6:32 AM GMT
    Which tells me that there are approximately 292 "Teabagger" groups, and approximately 6 "Progressive" groups trying to get out of paying their fair share of taxes...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2013 3:42 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidSo it's ok to be left but not right? Do we no longer have civil liberties for certain groups of people because they're not popular with the elites?


    That pretty much describes this forum.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2013 3:57 PM GMT
    The more substantial question is how many groups were denied tax exempt status?

    Section 501(c)(4) of the IRS Code exempts from taxation nonprofit “civic leagues or organizations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2013 4:15 PM GMT
    tailgater_3 saidThe more substantial question is how many groups were denied tax exempt status?

    Section 501(c)(4) of the IRS Code exempts from taxation nonprofit “civic leagues or organizations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare."


    Hardly. The more substantial question now is whether or not the timing of the delays was such to reduce the impact of the "tea partiers" in the 2012 election cycle - while approving others that were allied to the ideological views of Democrats.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 29, 2013 6:42 PM GMT
    (Sigh) .... Wow you guys are like my dogs with a dirty sock
    You never give it up

    You can bring this subject up until you're blue in the face
    The facts are never gonna change
    Fact Number one .... it was stupid for the IRS to do but how many Tea party groups lost their status? Right
    And how many Progressive groups lost theirs ... Uh Huh
    Fact Number Two ... The IRS under the auspices of a Bush Appointee did this on their own without the knowledge or the ok of the Whitehouse ....I Know how much that ruins your day
    but time for the sock to go into the wash fellas icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Jun 29, 2013 6:46 PM GMT
    How sad is it when one member posts on several of his "sock puppet' accounts, talking to "himself"?




    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2013 8:12 PM GMT
    Find the full, albeit redacted, transcript of the interview between lawmakers and the IRS Screening Group Manager in the agency’s Cincinnati office at the below addresses.

    http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/IRS_Screening_Manager_Part_I.pdf

    http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/IRS_Screening_Manager_Part_II.pdf
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jun 29, 2013 8:17 PM GMT
    GQjock said(Sigh) .... Wow you guys are like my dogs with a dirty sock
    You never give it up

    You can bring this subject up until you're blue in the face
    The facts are never gonna change
    Fact Number one .... it was stupid for the IRS to do but how many Tea party groups lost their status? Right
    And how many Progressive groups lost theirs ... Uh Huh
    Fact Number Two ... The IRS under the auspices of a Bush Appointee did this on their own without the knowledge or the ok of the Whitehouse ....I Know how much that ruins your day
    but time for the sock to go into the wash fellas icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif



    Fact the bush appointee donated to the democratic party DNC and Obama and his wife is a democratic lobbyist. Giving to the DNC is an automatic death sentence as a card carry republican. It stretches the truth to keep asserting " he was a republican" defense.

    The IRS is supposed to be non partisan. I know the point you are trying to make but it doesn't square with the facts.

    This happened in the Obama administration. If he was a republican hack he would have been dumped by Obama years ago. His politics may not be his wifes, but there is little if any evidence he was a "republican" other than the fact he was appointed by bush.

    Second how can you state that this happened just at Cincinnati without the IG's report being released yet? The first report was an audit. The information is being released in dribs and drabs.

    The treasury department was aware of the inappropriate handling of the cases for months but did not act. That is a fact.


    Last the point is not about "losing status" it was about groups applying for status and the applications being delayed on purpose, which is a defacto denial.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2013 2:55 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    GQjock said(Sigh) .... Wow you guys are like my dogs with a dirty sock
    You never give it up

    You can bring this subject up until you're blue in the face
    The facts are never gonna change
    Fact Number one .... it was stupid for the IRS to do but how many Tea party groups lost their status? Right
    And how many Progressive groups lost theirs ... Uh Huh
    Fact Number Two ... The IRS under the auspices of a Bush Appointee did this on their own without the knowledge or the ok of the Whitehouse ....I Know how much that ruins your day
    but time for the sock to go into the wash fellas icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif



    Fact the bush appointee donated to the democratic party DNC and Obama and his wife is a democratic lobbyist. Giving to the DNC is an automatic death sentence as a card carry republican. It stretches the truth to keep asserting " he was a republican" defense.

    The IRS is supposed to be non partisan. I know the point you are trying to make but it doesn't square with the facts.

    This happened in the Obama administration. If he was a republican hack he would have been dumped by Obama years ago. His politics may not be his wifes, but there is little if any evidence he was a "republican" other than the fact he was appointed by bush.

    Second how can you state that this happened just at Cincinnati without the IG's report being released yet? The first report was an audit. The information is being released in dribs and drabs.

    The treasury department was aware of the inappropriate handling of the cases for months but did not act. That is a fact.


    Last the point is not about "losing status" it was about groups applying for status and the applications being delayed on purpose, which is a defacto denial.


    Thanks for summarizing it. That is my understanding of the facts as well.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 01, 2013 12:37 AM GMT
    Good god you got that stinky sock out of the hamper again?

    What the IRS did was wrong ... but dude squared? Because there's a sock poppet echo in here that's deafening
    There is no link ... REPEAT ... THERE IS NO LINK
    Between what was done at the IRS and Washington ... NONE

    Now is there ever was? Your party would have to be the most INANE set of investigators that there ever was
    Because how many committees were set up and how many days of inquiry were done on this?

    Now for your homework I want you to use your red pencil
    and look up how many tea party groups were denied their funding by the IRS
    Once you did that I want you to use the same pencil and find out how many progressive groups lost their funding

    You don't need to post stupidity anymore after that
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 2:07 AM GMT
    Does this mean harassment is ok? Does this mean Obama is not responsible for what goes on during his watch? If the situation were reversed, the left would be wailing for years on end. Sorry, nobody likes double standards.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 2:07 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidDoes this mean harassment is ok? Does this mean Obama is not responsible for what goes on during his watch? If the situation were reversed, the left would be wailing for years on end. Sorry, nobody likes double standards.


    Apparently the liberal view is that if the President is a Democrat, he/she is not responsible for the behavior of the Executive Branch of government. If the President is a Republican, then he/she is 100% responsible for the behavior of the Executive Branch of government.

    Liberal "logic" is an amazing thing to behold.