Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

reply to post by XPLodER


Frankly before that post I didn't know it was possible for one to have their head in the sand, tap dance and twist themselves into knots via political yoga all at the same time but you did it and congrats.

Um just in case you haven't been paying attention, the President and the IRS have both admitted to there being targeted unfairly because of ideology. What exactly are you trying to deny?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by flobot

 

Don't have to prove anything

Executive Order 13522 is a fact

IRS targeting conservatives is a fact.

NTEU is anti teaparty is a fact.

Theres no 'I' in unions is also a fact.

In That bundle of sticks the only thing union does is what is in it's 'best' interest not it's members.

The union comes first, and it's the only thing that matters.

edit on 20-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Yes, you do have to prove quite a bit of things.

Conjecture is not enough.

So far you and the rest of the Republicans have proved nothing, just grasping at straws and throwing around the word "impeachment" a lot.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


i am not trying to say i know more than the pres..... or anyone else for that matter,
i am just pointing out the obvious,

the IRS "scandle" is that political parties are hiding behind charities to fund campains,
something that is against the tax law as it stands.

left leaning groups were also investigated in the exact same manner,
using the exact same standards.

the real problem is when political donations are called "charity"
they are not "for the benefit of social welfare"
they are for the benefit of "UNDISCLOSED POLITICAL DONORS"

they benifit a small minority of people who want their candidates elected.

then the OP tries to use the non scandle to paint someone as "against the tea party" and therefore open to political attacks.

if you look at the bigger picture the scandle is that right and left leaning groups are subverting the charitable donations loop hole for charity, to push political candidates.

after you realise this its useless to try to connect the IRS and unions as an issiue.

The IRS has interpreted our tax laws to allow big corporations and wealthy individuals to make unlimited secret campaign donations through sham political fronts called “social welfare organizations,” like Karl Rove’s “Crossroads,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and “Priorites USA.”

www.commondreams.org...

this goes to left and right equally,

DO NOT SUBVERT CHARITY TO PUSH YOUR POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS,

connecting anything or anyone else to this is simply playing politics with a non issue.

should political groups be allowed to call themselves "charitable"?

if so OWS should enter politics, and use this same mechanism to push their political agenda,
something that should be obvious is that not every sees OWS as doing a public good.

i support OWS but i dont want them using charities to push politics.

the union idea simply uses technology to get "in-front" of issues before they escalate,
there is no connection between the IRS issiue and the union use of technology

xploder

reply to post by flobot

Yes, you do have to prove quite a bit of things. Conjecture is not enough. So far you and the rest of the Republicans have proved nothing, just grasping at straws and throwing around the word "impeachment" a lot

Since when has 'conjecture never been enough' still wating for proof of someone saying 'the constitution is a GD piece of paper'.

Not the one throwing the word 'impeachment' around in this thread unlike who?

I find it amusing that it can be called mere speculation that there is any malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration with the MSM and supporters bending over backwards in their feeble attempts to ignore the growing scandals.

I imagine the same people on the Titanic saying that the ship is fine, the listing to port was done on purpose (probably by republicans) and that the water that they are taking on is actually a good thing!

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Frankly before that post I didn't know it was possible for one to have their head in the sand, tap dance and twist themselves into knots via political yoga all at the same time but you did it and congrats.

Um just in case you haven't been paying attention, the President and the IRS have both admitted to there being targeted unfairly because of ideology. What exactly are you trying to deny?

i am trying to point out the FACT that these groups were trying to subvert a charity designation to push a political opinion for personal benifit rather than what the law says.

case in point, was it wrong for OWS to be investigated in the exact same manner, for the exact same reasons because they were called OWS?

what if they were called "elect non tea party candidates"
or save the poor and then did nothing to save the poor and simply spent money on electing people who would be supportive of their political opinions?

simply by looking at the name should tell you weather it is a charity or a political party PRETENDING to be a charity organisation or a ligitamite charity doing work "in the interest of social welfare"

unless you understand that it is BAD for political parties to pretend to be charities then you will not understand this is not about tea party OR OWS but about charities

hope you can understand

xploder

Originally posted by jrod
Obama's presidency reminds me a lot of Nixon's. Many people forget Nixon won in a landslide in '72, it took a scandal to make him resign, it will take an impeachment and a vote for removal of office for Obama, he won't resign.


The majority of the country still blindly support Obama, an impeachment will be unpopular among the Obama faithful.

Sorry, but the "free stuff" constituency won't give a damn how many scandals there have been or will be.

He just has to keep the checks going out every month.

reply to post by XPLodER


So why is the IRs 'aplogizing' if it did nothing wrong eh?

Oh because they were doing something wrong, please feel free to continue to defend a corrupt government organization tho...

Originally posted by beezzer
I find it amusing that it can be called mere speculation that there is any malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration with the MSM and supporters bending over backwards in their feeble attempts to ignore the growing scandals.

I imagine the same people on the Titanic saying that the ship is fine, the listing to port was done on purpose (probably by republicans) and that the water that they are taking on is actually a good thing!

is subverting charities for politics ever acceptable?
in your humble opinion?

if not then this op is just trying to get "mileage" out of a non issiue

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

i am not trying to say i know more than the pres..... or anyone else for that matter,
i am just pointing out the obvious,

the IRS "scandle" is that political parties are hiding behind charities to fund campains,
something that is against the tax law as it stands.

Well, you're talking about something different than I've read this OP and thread to be about. I've been reading a discussion about the IRS misconduct as it applies to the unfair targeting of Conservative groups by IRS audit and the slowing of applications for various tax structures....also due to their political leaning.

See, these aren't opinions. They're facts as the IRS has already had people half heartedly testify to, many more speak to outside a hearing and with more enthusiasm as well as the President of the United States both say and direct his people to say on the matter.

What needs investigated here is WHO among the IRS offices is still drawing a paycheck and plans to see a pension after so blatantly breaking the law. The very law they are charged with enforcing. Their bosses already threw them under the figurative bus.....now lets get the specifics to insure they make it out the career window. I don't want to think those bean counting hacks are still sitting in positions of authority, as career pencil pushers who develop policy from within.

You're apparently talking about the secondary issue of corrupt political groups hiding within charity designations and that isn't what the President or his people, into the IRS, are saying was the misconduct here. They're pretty clear..and I agree with them for a change. I just believe we need a MUCH longer list to account for the hundreds of groups who felt the wrath of a political IRS manager.



I believe they call the side argument...a red herring, actually.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER

 

So why is the IRs 'aplogizing' if it did nothing wrong eh?

Oh because they were doing something wrong, please feel free to continue to defend a corrupt government organization tho...

i dont think you understand,
targeting ANY group because of politics IS bad,
unless you understand that political "charities" HAVE to be targeted to follow the law,
especially if they are political

there is a subtle difference, one is wrong, one is required under law IF you apply to be a charity
targeting political groups to stop them is wrong.
targeting groups who try to subvert charity for politics is LAW

there is a very important difference,
i am trying to point that out to you

xploder

Originally posted by beezzer
I find it amusing that it can be called mere speculation that there is any malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration with the MSM and supporters bending over backwards in their feeble attempts to ignore the growing scandals.

I imagine the same people on the Titanic saying that the ship is fine, the listing to port was done on purpose (probably by republicans) and that the water that they are taking on is actually a good thing!

Of course the American people are ignoring the current scandals. None of them have been linked to the President and with the economy on the up tick and both wars at an end they are not going to care unless a real scandal that directly links to President happens. Even then under Clinton and Reagan people were willing to over look them. What is interesting is if the President had known about the audit that was revealing the focus on the anti tax tea party groups is would he have had it squashed. Now that would have been a scandal. Still the fact that is the tea party and most Americans think they are bunch of nut jobs it might not have mattered to anyone if he did.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


out of the 300 or more groups effected only 87 were "right leaning groups"
under the LAW anyone who applies for tax exempt status,
MUST be investigated to ensure they comply with the statue that states,
"for the benefit of or for the social welfare of the community"

now LOOKING for political parties hiding as charities is legal,
singling any specific TYPE of political group (right or tea party) is illegal

BUT if you name is "elect tea party charity" then you should realise that makes you a target for investigation.

it is well known that anything with tea party is USUALLY about trying to get people elected,
BUT
this CANNOT be used to decide weather to investigate OR not

hope that helps

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Don't need 'anything' pointed out first off.

A government agency after given broad new power electioneered for the current administration.

Is the issue.

Originally posted by XPLodER

is subverting charities for politics ever acceptable?
in your humble opinion?

if not then this op is just trying to get "mileage" out of a non issiue

xploder

The OP is doing the job the MSM has failed to do.

Is subverting charities for politics acceptable? How are charities being subverted, and if a message coincides then it isn't. Catholic charities provide soup and prayers. Baptist charities provide the same. Tea Party organisations may just be preaching a different message.

Self-reliance, freedom from government subservience being just a couple messages that are being provided.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Don't need 'anything' pointed out first off.

A government agency after given broad new power electioneered for the current administration.

Is the issue.

DONT LET THE FACTS GET IN THEY WAY OF YOUR OPINION
lol

should OWS get tax exempt status without investigation?
no
should the Tea Party?
no
did OWS whine about?
no
did the Tea party?
yes

were OWS "targeted" for "extra" scrutiny?
yes
was this law
yes
was the tea party "targeted" for "extra" scrutiny?
yes
was this the law
yes

was the MANNER they were targeted "fair"?
yes if they didnt want to be investigated they should not be involved in electing THEIR candidates,
or using charity to hide political donations to elect their candidates.

its complex but simple if you have read the statute

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


More people listened to the teaparty hence the sweep in the House of Representatives which is why the adminstration unleashed it's gestapo on them.

reply to post by MrSpad


If Obama would have squashed the persecution of the Tea Parties, we would have actually endorsed him more. There are MANY democrats in the Tea Party. MANY liberals in the Tea Party. MANY libertarians in the Tea Party.

The republicans have latched onto the Tea Party because the democrats failed to get the message.

reply to post by XPLodER


No, it doesn't really help. What are you arguing here? Who are you debating? Obama, your President, has said....HIMSELF....this is misconduct. He's used the word inexcusable and he's personally called for investigation. Not just ONCE.

You would seem to be debating the President's own words, admissions and meanings. The only thing I'm finding surprising with Obama is that he figured he could heave-ho the IRS head under the bus and not have it come BACK on him as a sign of poor leadership for it having happened in the first place.

However, every point you're debating isn't a point I've made. It's a point those being accused, in the oddest twist of this story, have already stipulated to and in as many words. :shk:

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER

 

So why is the IRs 'aplogizing' if it did nothing wrong eh?

Oh because they were doing something wrong, please feel free to continue to defend a corrupt government organization tho...

And why is the President outraged? Apparently he's more outraged or just as outraged as anyone else. Seems odd that the White House is so "outraged" when it's all a tempest in a teacup according to XPLodER and other pundits like him...