IRS targeted Tea Party: Abuse of Power by Obama Administration

[rocker]

And in any case, I never ventured having proof of my suspicions thus you are in error that I have made up anything, just venturing a likely scenario of what is going on.

Can anyone make sense of this?

[Hemodoc]

And in any case, I never ventured having proof of my suspicions thus you are in error that I have made up anything, just venturing a likely scenario of what is going on.

Can anyone make sense of this?

Yes, it is called speculation, it is also called an educated guess based on prior political scandals outcomes. Yes, when is speculation about anything as a possible outcome of this investigation making anything up? It is just as I have stated, speculation. Not hard to understand at all my friend. We will simply have to wait and see what develops.

[rocker]

And in any case, I never ventured having proof of my suspicions thus you are in error that I have made up anything, just venturing a likely scenario of what is going on.

Can anyone make sense of this?

Yes, it is called speculation, it is also called an educated guess based on prior political scandals outcomes. Yes, when is speculation about anything as a possible outcome of this investigation making anything up? It is just as I have stated, speculation. Not hard to understand at all my friend. We will simply have to wait and see what develops.

Peter, really, are you ok?  You don't usually make errors this basic.

First, the sentence I commented on above says that since you never claimed to have proof, you clearly did not make anything up.  As I observed, that makes no sense at all.

Then you said it's speculation, which google defines as "guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence."  So now you're saying that you didn't make it up, it's a guess.  Which is "made up" by definition.

A logical refutation for "you made it up" would be, for example, "No, I didn't make this up. I heard it from a crazy person on Fox News. They are the one who made it up."

[Hemodoc]

And in any case, I never ventured having proof of my suspicions thus you are in error that I have made up anything, just venturing a likely scenario of what is going on.

Can anyone make sense of this?

Yes, it is called speculation, it is also called an educated guess based on prior political scandals outcomes. Yes, when is speculation about anything as a possible outcome of this investigation making anything up? It is just as I have stated, speculation. Not hard to understand at all my friend. We will simply have to wait and see what develops.

Peter, really, are you ok?  You don't usually make errors this basic.

First, the sentence I commented on above says that since you never claimed to have proof, you clearly did not make anything up.  As I observed, that makes no sense at all.

Then you said it's speculation, which google defines as "guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence."  So now you're saying that you didn't make it up, it's a guess.  Which is "made up" by definition.

A logical refutation for "you made it up" would be, for example, "No, I didn't make this up. I heard it from a crazy person on Fox News. They are the one who made it up."

Oh my, another nit picker. Here look up the meaning of this my friend:  "just venturing a likely scenario"

Venturing definition:  To express at the risk of denial, criticism, or censure

So, if parsing my grammar makes you happy, go for it, but I would call that a waste of time. Lastly, did you get your information from NBC news? For your information, you find bias on all of these programs. But as Hillary stated, WHO CARES?

[MooseMom]

Well, I'd like to get back to the issue at hand.

More information has been offered, and more hearings will be held next week.

[Hemodoc]

Well, I'd like to get back to the issue at hand.

More information has been offered, and more hearings will be held next week.

Anyone who really thinks that low level IRS folks did this on their own is not looking at the reality of what is before us. Will the evidence of higher level control of this emerge? Not very likely, but indeed, that is the entire discourse and direction that these hearings are exploring and the entire reason for these hearings. That may be speculation on my part, but that is the driving force of those at these hearings asking the questions.

[rocker]

This does point to a serious problem in the system, that of political entities operating as "charities".  The law was muddied a number of years ago, and the Citizens United ruling kicked the door wide open.

Previously, this particular tax designation was reserved for entities who operated "exclusively" for social welfare, and they could not engage in politics.  Then the law was changed to say their purpose had to be "primarily" social welfare.  And the politics bit was, ummm, sort of ok, as long as they didn't, you know, primarily do it.

How is an agent supposed to enforce this?

So of course, if what you're policing is whether an organization is "primarily political" - gosh, doesn't it make sense to give extra scrutiny to organizations with political names?  Which of these is more likely to be a violation - "The Democratic Party of Franklin County", or the "Stop MS Foundation"?

And despite some people's constant desire to be victims, political groups of all stripes were targetted.

The law needs to be clarified, and we need to stop giving tax-exempt status to political groups.  Period.

[Hemodoc]

This does point to a serious problem in the system, that of political entities operating as "charities".  The law was muddied a number of years ago, and the Citizens United ruling kicked the door wide open.

Previously, this particular tax designation was reserved for entities who operated "exclusively" for social welfare, and they could not engage in politics.  Then the law was changed to say their purpose had to be "primarily" social welfare.  And the politics bit was, ummm, sort of ok, as long as they didn't, you know, primarily do it.

How is an agent supposed to enforce this?

So of course, if what you're policing is whether an organization is "primarily political" - gosh, doesn't it make sense to give extra scrutiny to organizations with political names?  Which of these is more likely to be a violation - "The Democratic Party of Franklin County", or the "Stop MS Foundation"?

And despite some people's constant desire to be victims, political groups of all stripes were targetted.

The law needs to be clarified, and we need to stop giving tax-exempt status to political groups.  Period.

Hmmm, Billy Graham was one of those tax exempt organizations targeted by the IRS. Should he be considered a "political group" and excluded as a tax exempt group? How do you define a "political" group in the context of tax exempt status?

[MooseMom]

How do you define a "political" group in the context of tax exempt status?

By Jove, I think you've hit upon the essential problem!   

[rocker]

Hmmm, Billy Graham was one of those tax exempt organizations targeted by the IRS. Should he be considered a "political group" and excluded as a tax exempt group? How do you define a "political" group in the context of tax exempt status?

Umm, well, no, it was not "Billy Graham" that claims to have been targetted.

Franklin Graham went public claiming to have been "targetted with audits", which has zero to do with what's been in the news.  (That dealt with new applications for tax-exempt status.)  And he even claimed he was "targetted" after running explicitly political ads.  Which, of course, is exactly the sort of thing one would expect to be audited for - using tax-exempt contributions for a non-exempt purpose.

[Hemodoc]

Hmmm, Billy Graham was one of those tax exempt organizations targeted by the IRS. Should he be considered a "political group" and excluded as a tax exempt group? How do you define a "political" group in the context of tax exempt status?

Umm, well, no, it was not "Billy Graham" that claims to have been targetted.

Franklin Graham went public claiming to have been "targetted with audits", which has zero to do with what's been in the news.  (That dealt with new applications for tax-exempt status.)  And he even claimed he was "targetted" after running explicitly political ads.  Which, of course, is exactly the sort of thing one would expect to be audited for - using tax-exempt contributions for a non-exempt purpose.

Actually, one of the two targeted Graham organizations targeted was the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association which Franklin Graham now runs.  Just sayin. So yes, the Graham ministries is part of this mess. In addition, the ads run did not violate their tax exempt status, so not an issue at all. The issue is not any misadventures by "Tea Party" groups. Instead, it is a very blatant abuse of power that greatly benefited Obama politically. To believe that he and his cronies from Chicago did not oversee this defies logic. Who benefited from this IRS scrutiny? The answer is Obama. The question is thus, is there evidence obtainable to tie those two facts together? The president always has plausible deniability in any of these sort of actions that they do no doubt engage in and if it gets close to the White House, they will have someone fall on a sword for the commander in chief.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/franklin-graham-irs-targeted-ministries/

[Jean]

Hemodoc, I have to give you a lot of credit for trying to fight off the liberals. And you do it time after time. Must admit, I love it when the left and the right start fighting, as they will tear each other down to the underwear to make a point. No matter what Obama does, as commander in chief, the left will stand there and say how wonderful he is. And of course, that is also on the Benghazi joke too. It is so blatantly obvious that he lied and so did Hillary. But, the left doesn't see that. Just wanted to put my    in and I wont argue any more.

[MooseMom]

No matter what Obama does, as commander in chief, the left will stand there and say how wonderful he is.

Of course, the flip side of that is "No matter what Obama does, as Commander in Chief, the right will obstruct anything he tries to do."  Just ask Mitch McConnell, patriot that he is. 

And of course, that is also on the Benghazi joke too. It is so blatantly obvious that he lied and so did Hillary. But, the left doesn't see that. Just wanted to put my    in and I wont argue any more.

How many people have testified about Benghazi?  How many documents relating to Bengazi have been released?  How many emails have been made available to Congress and to the press, only to have them blatantly ALTERED by some as yet to be identified Republican group/person and then released to ABC (with CBS subsequently reporting on their alteration)?  So how can such a blatant lie perpetrated by the President and Hillary Clinton still remain under wraps after such close scrutiny?  It's so easy to say, "You don't agree with me, so you are obviously blind and just don't want to SEE." 

[MooseMom]

 The issue is not any misadventures by "Tea Party" groups. Instead, it is a very blatant abuse of power that greatly benefited Obama politically. To believe that he and his cronies from Chicago did not oversee this defies logic. Who benefited from this IRS scrutiny? The answer is Obama. The question is thus, is there evidence obtainable to tie those two facts together? The president always has plausible deniability in any of these sort of actions that they do no doubt engage in and if it gets close to the White House, they will have someone fall on a sword for the commander in chief.

I must be missing something because it is my understanding that groups applying for tax-exempt status are not supposed to be political in nature.  As you yourself have noted, it is not always easy to separate the political from the social welfare applications.  It seems pretty daft to me that if your group wants to apply for tax-exempt status, you'd name it "Tea Party This" or "Patriot That", don't you think?  While the IRS should be apolitical, it is still given the task of separating the political from the non-political, so frankly "Tea Party" just screams POLITICAL.

Maybe this scrutiny DID benefit Obama, but I think what really benefitted Obama was Romney.  And Paul Ryan.  And the 47%.  And the idea that our country should be run like a corporation.  And the Republican Primaries.  And a lot of other things.

[Hemodoc]

 The issue is not any misadventures by "Tea Party" groups. Instead, it is a very blatant abuse of power that greatly benefited Obama politically. To believe that he and his cronies from Chicago did not oversee this defies logic. Who benefited from this IRS scrutiny? The answer is Obama. The question is thus, is there evidence obtainable to tie those two facts together? The president always has plausible deniability in any of these sort of actions that they do no doubt engage in and if it gets close to the White House, they will have someone fall on a sword for the commander in chief.

I must be missing something because it is my understanding that groups applying for tax-exempt status are not supposed to be political in nature.  As you yourself have noted, it is not always easy to separate the political from the social welfare applications.  It seems pretty daft to me that if your group wants to apply for tax-exempt status, you'd name it "Tea Party This" or "Patriot That", don't you think?  While the IRS should be apolitical, it is still given the task of separating the political from the non-political, so frankly "Tea Party" just screams POLITICAL.

Maybe this scrutiny DID benefit Obama, but I think what really benefitted Obama was Romney.  And Paul Ryan.  And the 47%.  And the idea that our country should be run like a corporation.  And the Republican Primaries.  And a lot of other things.

Once again, the groups targeted by wrongful and abuse of power by the IRS underlings, question at whose request? are the perpetrators in this mess, not those that were targeted by the IRS. The rules are set in regulations and laws that spell out who can and who cannot qualify for this status. The issue is NOT about those who applied, it is instead about those who thwarted by abuse of power the application process in addition to further scrutiny of those who already have a tax exempt status.

It is a truth that the power to tax is the power to destroy. There are several that applied and withdrew because of the difficulty of application. In addition, preparing for a tax audit such as what the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association went through is VERY costly and time consuming thus deferring funds meant for charitable purposes to defending against an abusive IRS inquisition.

No, you are simply quite mistaken to blame the victim. Isn't that the accusation many make against rape victims. Well, understand that the IRS did indeed attempt to "rape" these right leaning organizations. Who benefited, Obama during his reelection. Did he condone, approve, supervise and encourage the IRS abuse of power? That is the question that the congressional hearings is looking into, but indeed, Obama did benefit greatly from the IRS abuse of power.

[Hemodoc]

No matter what Obama does, as commander in chief, the left will stand there and say how wonderful he is.

Of course, the flip side of that is "No matter what Obama does, as Commander in Chief, the right will obstruct anything he tries to do."  Just ask Mitch McConnell, patriot that he is. 

And of course, that is also on the Benghazi joke too. It is so blatantly obvious that he lied and so did Hillary. But, the left doesn't see that. Just wanted to put my    in and I wont argue any more.

How many people have testified about Benghazi?  How many documents relating to Bengazi have been released?  How many emails have been made available to Congress and to the press, only to have them blatantly ALTERED by some as yet to be identified Republican group/person and then released to ABC (with CBS subsequently reporting on their alteration)?  So how can such a blatant lie perpetrated by the President and Hillary Clinton still remain under wraps after such close scrutiny?  It's so easy to say, "You don't agree with me, so you are obviously blind and just don't want to SEE."

Actually, it is my understanding that they have not submitted any of the emails in the first 48 hours of the Benghazi incident when the major decisions were made. Clearly, no protest occurred and the video for which they still have a man locked away did NOT incite this incident. To date, they have not come clean on that.

In addition, as an ex-military member, although I was not a grunt or even over seas for any duty outside of the US, I do appreciate the prevailing military duty to not leave any man behind. Well, we did. Where was Obama for 7 hours? Where was Hillary?? Then on top of that, they dissed the Libyan president contradicting his take on that which hindered the FBI access according to recent congressional testimony. To date, they have not come clean on any of these established facts and are still trying to push the video excuse for this entire mess.

That is not transparency.

[Simon Dog]

The bottom line is that there are only two things that matter is politics - winning and not getting indicted.   No matter what is uncovered, there will be no penalty imposed on those who benefited from the chicanery, and Obama will enjoy the remainder of his term.

[rocker]

No, you are simply quite mistaken to blame the victim. Isn't that the accusation many make against rape victims. Well, understand that the IRS did indeed attempt to "rape" these right leaning organizations.

This speaks for itself.

[Hemodoc]

No, you are simply quite mistaken to blame the victim. Isn't that the accusation many make against rape victims. Well, understand that the IRS did indeed attempt to "rape" these right leaning organizations.

This speaks for itself.

Yes, it does, you are right. Abuse of power is not to be tolerated no matter who it is that perpetrates that abuse. Nixon at least had the honor left to resign. That won't happen with Obama. Rape is a gross abuse of physical and violent power, yes, the analogy is such of another form of abuse of power and tyranny. Rather crude analogy I agree, but it still works nevertheless. If you folks wish to somehow blame the victim, don't complain when you become their target.

[YLGuy]

 It is NOTHING like rape.  You really need to get a grip on reality.  I have lost all respect now. 

[Hemodoc]

It is NOTHING like rape.  You really need to get a grip on reality.  I have lost all respect now.

Yeah right, how can you lose respect YL when I can't recall a single instance in the last 5 years where you have ever shown me any respect in the first place. Nothing new my friend. In any case, keep casting your aspersions as much as you wish. I have decided to cease and desist in responding but I do reserve the right to report all outright ad hominem attacks to the moderators.

In any case, don't tell me you have NEVER heard the term rape used in a "slang" manner outside of the definition referring to an actual sexual assault?

Definition of rape

rape

to abuse or damage, usu. to the point of uselessness or maximum damage.
I raped my credit card at the mall.
That car cut in so close it almost raped me.
Last edited on Oct 08 1998. Submitted by Philip T. from Chicago, IL, USA on Oct 08 1998.
verb - transitive

to defeat greatly - figuratively or literally.
I am going to rape you at basketball.
Man, I totally got raped on that math test.
Your team got raped in the football game.
Greg raped me at soccer today.

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/rape

Urban Dictionary:

2.    Rape

To utterly defeat another person in any form of competitive activies.
Dude, I totally raped your *** during that last game of Age of Empires.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rape

Further:

1) Rape victims are often blamed for the sexual assault. "She deserved it the way she was dressed."

The left is trying to blame the conservative groups: "They deserved it because of their political activities."

2) Rape victims are overcome by abusive power often associated with violence or threat of violence.

The conservative groups faced abusive power associated with a government agency who can summon men with guns and at the threat of violence lock you up for a very long period of time. That is by definition, tyranny.

Definition: Tyranny - arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. Synonyms: despotism, absolutism, dictatorship.

3) Rape victims often suffer greatly and have in a very real sense had a part or all of their life altered and destroyed.

Some of the applicants gave up and were unable to continue their mission and quest by the undue and unrestrained power of the IRS. Remember, the power to tax is the power to destroy.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863135,00.html

So, by noted slang or urban usage, the term refers to more than just sexual assault. In addition, the left is now blaming the victim, the IRS utilized abusive power backed up by the threat to be able use the power to fine or confine at the point of a gun if necessary and the IRS has indeed hindered or destroyed some of those that they thwarted. So, on all of those levels, your personal attack once again is unwarranted my friend.

[YLGuy]

OMG! I am amazing!  According to you I have not shown any respect for the last five years. 

Date Registered: May 30, 2009, 08:11:49 PM

May 30th I will have been a member for a total of four years.  Again, your credibility is in question.

year  (yîr)
n.
1.
a. The period of time during which Earth completes a single revolution around the sun, consisting of 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds of mean solar time. In the Gregorian calendar the year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 and is divided into 12 months, 52 weeks, and 365 or 366 days. Also called calendar year.
b. A period approximately equal to a year in other calendars.
c. A period of approximately the duration of a calendar year: We were married a year ago.
2. A sidereal year.
3. A solar year.
4. A period equal to the calendar year but beginning on a different date: a tax-reckoning year; a farming year.
5. A specific period of time, usually shorter than 12 months, devoted to a special activity: the academic year.
6. years Age, especially old age: I'm feeling my years.
7. years An indefinitely long period of time: it's been years since we saw her.

[Rerun]

Rape is also a "crop" grown in the Northwest.  It's counterpart is Canola.  Canola is grown for human consumption and Rape is grown for industrial oils.

So there... la la la   

[Hemodoc]

OMG! I am amazing!  According to you I have not shown any respect for the last five years. 

Date Registered: May 30, 2009, 08:11:49 PM

May 30th I will have been a member for a total of four years.  Again, your credibility is in question.

year  (yîr)
n.
1.
a. The period of time during which Earth completes a single revolution around the sun, consisting of 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds of mean solar time. In the Gregorian calendar the year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 and is divided into 12 months, 52 weeks, and 365 or 366 days. Also called calendar year.
b. A period approximately equal to a year in other calendars.
c. A period of approximately the duration of a calendar year: We were married a year ago.
2. A sidereal year.
3. A solar year.
4. A period equal to the calendar year but beginning on a different date: a tax-reckoning year; a farming year.
5. A specific period of time, usually shorter than 12 months, devoted to a special activity: the academic year.
6. years Age, especially old age: I'm feeling my years.
7. years An indefinitely long period of time: it's been years since we saw her.

You know what YL. You don't like me. What else is new. Get back on topic please, my patience with your personal attacks is done.

[kitkatz]

Okay Folks, once again I am tired of reports of personal attacks in these threads.  You were warned-  Thick skin is needed in the political section.


Play nice and be respectful of each other.   No personal attacks, no name calling.   Quit taking sarcasm as a personal attack.





kitkatz-Moderator