IRS Officials Visited White House More Than 100 Times During Targeting - Bush-Era IRS Chief Visited

Originally posted by XPLodER
why bother

edit on 29/5/13 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

That sounds like bureaucrats pleading the fifth.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by XPLodER
why bother

edit on 29/5/13 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

You "bother" because you believe what you write! Or maybe you don't? We are here for discussion (even though you wholly ignored my points and went for the more emotional responses). So you just stating "why bother" is a cop out. A sign of surrender. Unwilling to discuss what you believe against those who believe differently; in other words, unable to engage in discourse.

i dont surrender,
i just dont think anyone (including myself) realises that this is not about targeting,
this is about HOW SOCIAL WELFARE CHARITIES SPEND TAX EXEMPT MONIES

the fact it has now been politicized and about "targeting" is IMHO a calculated misdirection.
intended to "shield" liable parties to infringement of the use of social welfare charities for political purposes.

it would seem to me that most people have no interest in debating the underlying problem of fake charities,
and their expenditure in political races with "donated" money.

all the people want is to reinforce their narrative of being victims,
when the REAL victims or the people who would normally receive the money that was collected in their name.

this media circus is just a distraction from the real crime of perverting charities for politics.

if you only want to discuss what the distraction is by all means keep repeating "talking points"
and ignore the fact that other charities went through the same process,
and ACTUALLY SPENT THE MONEY ON PEOPLE and not politics.

IF ANYTHING THIS SHOWS THAT SOME GROUPS APPLIED FOR CHARITY STATUS AND THEN NEGLECTED
the obligations they had, to NOT to in-gauge in "electioneering"

this media storm is to cover for the improper use of charitable donations,
and IMHO JUST COVER FOR CRIMINALS

why bother repeating that point when the debate comes back as "soros" or some other boggy man.

a crime has been committed, and the people responsible are saying,
you cant investigate because targeting!!!!

but what happens if those groups actively "applied" for exemption,
knowing before hand they were going to be politically active?

is this not the REAL scandal, that SO MANY groups have made incorrect statements or ignored their obligations?

deny ignorence,

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
i dont surrender,

To this, I am glad. I don't think those of differing opinion should be discouraged or even "fed up" in an open debate. I am glad you are back.

i just dont think anyone (including myself) realises that this is not about targeting,
this is about HOW SOCIAL WELFARE CHARITIES SPEND TAX EXEMPT MONIES

That is the split no? How are you saying it isn't targeting when evidence is stating otherwise? You have yet to provide that is is merely how "social welfare(what is that by the way?) charities", "spend tax exempt monies".

First, define "social welfare". Second, define "spending monies".

"...the fact it has now been politicized and about "targeting" is IMHO a calculated misdirection.
intended to "shield" liable parties to infringement of the use of social welfare charities for political purposes.

it would seem to me that most people have no interest in debating the underlying problem of fake charities,
and their expenditure in political races with "donated" money."

"Fake" charities have existed; you asked about the "lefts" charities and myself and others have shown numerous 501c corporations that enjoy the benefits but didn't get scrutinized or investigated. Are you denying them as separate entities? Is is okay because they fall under your spectrum of influence?

...all the people want is to reinforce their narrative of being victims,
when the REAL victims or the people who would normally receive the money that was collected in their name.

What? What people are you referring to? I want to clarify that. Who would "normally receive the money"? I am confused and help me out here.

this media circus is just a distraction from the real crime of perverting charities for politics.

Agreed to an extent but why is it or how is it, the Government's business of any groups engagement in politics? Charity or otherwise, they enjoy the First Amendment just as you and I do.

if you only want to discuss what the distraction is by all means keep repeating "talking points"
and ignore the fact that other charities went through the same process,
and ACTUALLY SPENT THE MONEY ON PEOPLE and not politics.

I would love to know these "talking points"; since I hardly base anything I write off of "news" sources. So check yourself in trying to call me out. You will fail. Many charities spend the monies how they see fit, does it matter if it is humanitarian or political? I didn't realize you were the arbiter of such decisions.

IF ANYTHING THIS SHOWS THAT SOME GROUPS APPLIED FOR CHARITY STATUS AND THEN NEGLECTED
the obligations they had, to NOT to in-gauge in "electioneering"

You mean like ACORN? Or Planned Parenthood? Or even the president's own reelection campaign organization? Open your damn eyes. You are so deep in hatred you are failing to see the big picture.

deny ignorence,

Indeed, start with yourself.