quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

If police truly formed reasonable suspicions about crime and did so on a race-neutral basis, I would be more inclined to accept it. I'd also probably tell a police officer that tried to frisk me that he could come back with a warrant, because he wasn't touching me otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html
"IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row"
Also,the use of the word "targeting" is a deliberate attempt to make what the IRS did seem political......where it was nothing but law enforcement.
I`ve also heard that while the cry-babies(tea-baggers) were ................."sent the letter".............<play scary music>......it was only liberal groups who were denied.[8|]
Where`s the outrage....you fake-outraged cons?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html
"IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row"
Also,the use of the word "targeting" is a deliberate attempt to make what the IRS did seem political......where it was nothing but law enforcement.
I`ve also heard that while the cry-babies(tea-baggers) were ................."sent the letter".............<play scary music>......it was only liberal groups who were denied.[8|]
Where`s the outrage....you fake-outraged cons?

As has been shown already, 3 left-leaning groups came under more scrutiny. Of those 3, only one was denied.

Picking 3 left-leaning groups is nothing compared to a systemic choosing of right-leaning groups. That no applications were denied sure seems to point towards there not being any good reason as to why the right-leaning groups were chosen.

Any idea why the left-leaning group was denied? I know I don't. So, comparing that to none of the "tea party," "patriot" (which could have included left or right leaning organizations), etc. groups not being denied is moot. Unless you can show that the reason that group's application was denied wasn't grounds for denial of any of the right-leaning groups, you really have nothing. And, if you can prove that, I'll stand with you in protest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

And back to the topic at hand (comparing so-called "Terry stops" with the IRS scandal):

I definitely see the point here. I have problems with Terry stops, especially when they're employed primarily against minorities. The idea behind them wasn't awful (a police officer forms a reasonable suspicion that a person is about to commit a crime, and is allowed to stop them and check for weapons, hopefully preventing the crime from taking place), but it's become problematic. Why should it be ok for a police officer to frisk a person for "walking while black" when the IRS is caught in a political tornado for targeting conservative groups?

If police truly formed reasonable suspicions about crime and did so on a race-neutral basis, I would be more inclined to accept it. I'd also probably tell a police officer that tried to frisk me that he could come back with a warrant, because he wasn't touching me otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I think you should take your foot out of your mouth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/15/report-the-irs-also-targeted-at-least-three-liberal-groups/

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
As I've said before all of the applicatiosn from political groups should have denied. 501(c)4 organizations are supposed to be primarily social welfare groups.

quote:

To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements). For example, an organization that restricts the use of its facilities to employees of selected corporations and their guests is primarily benefiting a private group rather than the community and, therefore, does not qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. Similarly, an organization formed to represent member-tenants of an apartment complex does not qualify, because its activities benefit the member-tenants and not all tenants in the community, while an organization formed to promote the legal rights of all tenants in a particular community may qualify under section 501(c)(4) as a social welfare organization. An organization is not operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare if its primary activity is operating a social club for the benefit, pleasure or recreation of its members, or is carrying on a business with the general public in a manner similar to organizations operated for profit link].
Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status. An organization that has lost its section 501(c)(3) status due to substantial attempts to influence legislation may not thereafter qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. In addition, a section 501(c)(4) organization that engages in lobbying may be required to either provide notice to its members regarding the percentage of dues paid that are applicable to lobbying activities or pay a proxy tax. For more information, see Lobbying Issues .
The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
As I've said before all of the applicatiosn from political groups should have denied. 501(c)4 organizations are supposed to be primarily social welfare groups.

<snip>
How are you defining "social welfare?" If it's not the same way the IRS is using it, I can see how you take the stance you do. But, according to the IRS, there are political groups that can promote social welfare.

quote:

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

So, as the tale of the tape shows, I did mention this 6 days ago, and you responded to it, completely discrediting your "I wouldn't have caught it" bullshit.

Be well, Ron.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
As I've said before all of the applicatiosn from political groups should have denied. 501(c)4 organizations are supposed to be primarily social welfare groups.

<snip>
How are you defining "social welfare?" If it's not the same way the IRS is using it, I can see how you take the stance you do. But, according to the IRS, there are political groups that can promote social welfare.

You left something very important out

quote:

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office

Now consider Crossroads GPS (a 501(c)4 setup as part of Rove's super PAC). Is the following ad inside that law?http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/oct/18/crossroads-gps/crossroads-gps-says-sherrod-brown-backed-obamas-45/

quote:

However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.

quote:

The organization, co-founded by Karl Rove after the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling opened the door to new political spending, has been held up by campaign finance watchdogs as the primary example of a political group using the tax code to evade disclosure of its donors. Nonprofits organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, as Crossroads GPS is, are not required to name their donors, while political organizations like 527s and super PACs must disclose who funds them.

Crossroads GPS formally filed for tax-exempt status in 2010, a process that is not required. It has still not been approved, and its application was inadvertently leaked to the investigative news site ProPublica in 2012.

"From everything we know -- the criteria used by the IRS to target conservative groups, the timing, the still outstanding application after nearly three years, the leaking of the application from the Cincinnati office, and other factors -- Crossroads was one of the targeted groups," Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio told the Los Angeles Times in an email.

Collegio declined, however, to provide the Times with any evidence that Crossroads did or did not receive requests for information of the kind that were deemed inappropriate by the Department of the Treasury's inspector general (IG) in his report on the IRS' targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, as the tale of the tape shows, I did mention this 6 days ago, and you responded to it, completely discrediting your "I wouldn't have caught it" bullshit.
Be well, Ron.

Excellent, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I don't pay attention to you or read your poofery in detail.  Yes, you have incontrovertable proof of that.
Welll done, anything else is hallucinationation eminating from misplaced ego.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
As I've said before all of the applicatiosn from political groups should have denied. 501(c)4 organizations are supposed to be primarily social welfare groups.

<snip>
How are you defining "social welfare?" If it's not the same way the IRS is using it, I can see how you take the stance you do. But, according to the IRS, there are political groups that can promote social welfare.

You left something very important out

quote:

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office

Now consider Crossroads GPS (a 501(c)4 setup as part of Rove's super PAC). Is the following ad inside that law?http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/oct/18/crossroads-gps/crossroads-gps-says-sherrod-brown-backed-obamas-45/

I did not leave it out. I quoted it. I even italicized it. Read.

quote:

You, apparently, ignored the next sentence (which I also italicized):

quote:

However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.

quote:

The Crossroads GPS organization, according the HuffPo article, hasn't had it's application approved or denied yet. Well, that could be old news, though. I mean it was written yesterday and all... [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Was that ad in direct opposition to Senator Brown or not? I can present dozens of other attack ads put out by Crossroads GPS during the 2012 election cycle.

quote:

quote:

The Crossroads GPS organization, according the HuffPo article, hasn't had it's application approved or denied yet. Well, that could be old news, though. I mean it was written yesterday and all... [8|]

Good. It should not be tax exempt and the people donating to it should be public knowledge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Oh, fuck that, I love watching the unravel.  I just dont want to stand right next to them when they do it.
You got a problem, maybe you should look to your own house and use your own buttons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I am not at all whining, you are the one whining that you said this first or you said that first and so fucking what?  I am saying I don't give a good godamn glimmer of a fuck.