Jump to content

IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups...


Numbers

Recommended Posts

:lol:

 

It really isnt me, ask any of the other mods to run an IP trace.

 

I did and they ALL said Jamie is on his meds and not to mess with him.  Your IP is being spoofed from the Dayton area...  Old and Go and Elf turned you in, not me....  :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well look at our President look what he did he passed barak obomA passed obomascare right under our nose..huh..look at me I am conservative and look at my rep points..lol..liberals are allowed to take our guns away and break admendments but we republicans can't even splash a little water on our enemies..see my point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well look at our President look what he did he passed barak obomA passed obomascare right under our nose..huh..look at me I am conservative and look at my rep points..lol..liberals are allowed to take our guns away and break admendments but we republicans can't even splash a little water on our enemies..see my point!

 

 

lol-wut.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well look at our President look what he did he passed barak obomA passed obomascare right under our nose..huh..look at me I am conservative and look at my rep points..lol..liberals are allowed to take our guns away and break admendments but we republicans can't even splash a little water on our enemies..see my point!

 

It will be the conservative faction that ends up taking our guns away and not the liberals.  Under which presidents were the various gun control acts implemented under ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton made the gun laws and I assume bush enforced them..Most of the gun laws started were from Clinton.

 

Still very much incomplete.  A person who does the research will realize that it will be a conservative who takes away our rights more than any liberal ever has.  Most of the gun legislation took place BEFORE Clinton took office.  Even one piece of Clinton's gun legislation was something started during a REPUBLICAN administration BEFORE Clinton took office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really confused on this issue and I don't want to call real conservatives I know and ask them why this is a big deal because it will end up in a fight. . Why is it a big deal? Legitimately why do normal people care that conservatives who have as their mission to not pay taxes got looked out thoroughly before they had tax exempt status. What am I missing because I must be missing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really confused on this issue and I don't want to call real conservatives I know and ask them why this is a big deal because it will end up in a fight. . Why is it a big deal? Legitimately why do normal people care that conservatives who have as their mission to not pay taxes got looked out thoroughly before they had tax exempt status. What am I missing because I must be missing something.

 

It really depends on which side you listen to on what your answer is.  It is a war between the democrats and republicans that will make more people lose faith in both parties.

 

The Republicans would say that they were looked at while the Democrats were not.  They will also try to link the current president to the scandal.

 

The Democrats will say that EVERY organization that applies for tax exempt status is looked at and the president had no idea this is going on.

 

All because someone in the offices of the Cinci IRS had some form of personal vendetta.  The truth is that IF T-Dub not started his own private war in the IRS offices of Cinci this would not have been an issue.  :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It really depends on which side you listen to on what your answer is.  It is a war between the democrats and republicans that will make more people lose faith in both parties.

 

The Republicans would say that they were looked at while the Democrats were not.  They will also try to link the current president to the scandal.

 

The Democrats will say that EVERY organization that applies for tax exempt status is looked at and the president had no idea this is going on.

 

All because someone in the offices of the Cinci IRS had some form of personal vendetta.  The truth is that IF T-Dub not started his own private war in the IRS offices of Cinci this would not have been an issue.  :ninja:

 

But I dont understand the personal vendetta thing. What did they do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But I dont understand the personal vendetta thing. What did they do?

 

IF this is the way it went down from my interpretation of reading between the lines, a low level employee without direction from above took it upon themselves to put certain files/applications in the review basket while "others' were less scrutinized.  Without direction from higher authority I would guess it is someone with an axe to grind with certain groups.  ie vendetta.

 

I knew people like that when it came time for evaluations or special request items.  IF a person belonged to the wrong clique they were scrutinized and sometimes rejected while others who were part of their group were given a free pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF this is the way it went down from my interpretation of reading between the lines, a low level employee without direction from above took it upon themselves to put certain files/applications in the review basket while "others' were less scrutinized.  Without direction from higher authority I would guess it is someone with an axe to grind with certain groups.  ie vendetta.
 
I knew people like that when it came time for evaluations or special request items.  IF a person belonged to the wrong clique they were scrutinized and sometimes rejected while others who were part of their group were given a free pass.


I'm not saying that he didn't do anything wrong, because like I said I'm not really paying attention, but shouldn't a politically affiliated organization that is focused against taxes be overly scrutinized. Is it completely evident that they were wrongly targeted?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that he didn't do anything wrong, because like I said I'm not really paying attention, but shouldn't a politically affiliated organization that is focused against taxes be overly scrutinized. Is it completely evident that they were wrongly targeted?

 

Yes they should be scrutinized but NOT singled out for additional scrutiny based upon the party affiliation.  It is not completely evident they were wrongly targeted.  IF an organization was singling out an organization then they should answer to some pretty severe penalties.  IF an individual was singling out an organization it would be a much different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberals have always had special favor.

If you're not going to add something of substance to the discussion and just throw out stupid crap, then don't add at all.

 

This statement makes you sound like an idiot.  I'm not saying you are one but this makes you sound like one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that he didn't do anything wrong, because like I said I'm not really paying attention, but shouldn't a politically affiliated organization that is focused against taxes be overly scrutinized. Is it completely evident that they were wrongly targeted?

ALL not for profit's should fall under the same scrutiny when their exemption status is reviewed.  That is the bottom line.

 

As an aside, one of the 3 articles of impeachment for Nixon involved him having the IRS target specifically "income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner"

... just FYI.  Read Item #1 all the way through.

 

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

2. He misued the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

3. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

4. He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

5. In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALL not for profit's should fall under the same scrutiny when their exemption status is reviewed.  That is the bottom line.

 

As an aside, one of the 3 articles of impeachment for Nixon involved him having the IRS target specifically "income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner"

... just FYI.  Read Item #1 all the way through.

 

Your not going to scrutinize a non profit that wants to feed children less then a nonprofit that is related to a political party that wants to not pay taxes. Thats simply dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your not going to scrutinize a non profit that wants to feed children less then a nonprofit that is related to a political party that wants to not pay taxes. Thats simply dumb.

Like it or not... you should.  That non profit that wants to feed children may only be sending 2 or 3 pennies of every dollar donated to actually feeding children.  The CEO may be using it as a simple revenue engine.  Wouldn't you want that to be found out?

 

But, lets stay along your line of thinking... even if you did say that political non-profits should be scrutinized more than charitable ones... you still need to scrutinize that classification equally across ALL of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like it or not... you should.  That non profit that wants to feed children may only be sending 2 or 3 pennies of every dollar donated to actually feeding children.  The CEO may be using it as a simple revenue engine.  Wouldn't you want that to be found out?

 

But, lets stay along your line of thinking... even if you did say that political non-profits should be scrutinized more than charitable ones... you still need to scrutinize that classification equally across ALL of them.

I would want that to be scrutinized. I want a party thats essential premise for existence is not to pay taxes to be scrutinized with greater depth.

 

Who is more likely to try to get around paying taxes? The tea party or a group not focused on not paying taxes?

 

This is profiling and it should be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...