Probably, although there is still no direct tie in.
Couldn't possibly be his honesty and integrity, he drowned those long ago.
Amen. People need to go to jail.
Probably, although there is still no direct tie in.welp, the wilkins stuff came out
it's about to get interesting...
NOW ya'll can call it obamagate...
Couldn't possibly be his honesty and integrity, he drowned those long ago.How many times are you proven to be a liar by the actual sworn testimony in this case before you stop lying? Have you no shame? Have you no shame?
btw Jhhnn, your honesty and integrity called and they'd like you to come back home, they miss you.
"Name That Bureaucrat
The IRS scandal shows that those who make decisions must be held responsible."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353869/name-bureaucrat-john-fund
We all know that's not what they were stopping.
Fern
Jhnnn,
Is the Tea Party and its ilk the root of the problem? Dirty, polluted, evil organizations run by wealthy shadow people who are the real puppet masters. I see no reason that these vile reptiles be allowed to hide behind shady political entities that pretend to be charitable.
The Platform of the Republican Party Reptiles:
“I think our agenda is clear. We are opposed to: government spending, Kennedy kids, seat-belt laws, busing our children anywhere other than Yale, trailer courts near our vacation homes, all tiny Third World countries that don’t have banking secrecy laws, aerobics, the UN, taxation without tax loop*holes, and jewelry on men. We are in favor of: guns, drugs, fast cars, free love (if our wives don’t find out), a sound dollar, and a strong military with spiffy uniforms.
“There are thousands of people in America who feel this way, especially after three or four drinks. If all of us would unite and work together, we could give this country. . . well, a real bad hangover.”
Doh! You think?Republican Party Reptile
Essays and Outrages
By P. J. O'Rourke
Reptile has been used already.
http://www.groveatlantic.com/?title=Republican+Party+Reptile
That's the first link from Google, though the studies and the concepts been widely reported and discussed (though perhaps not on Fox and its brethren). We've even had threads about them here. In short, yes, "reptile" has been used already. That's not a coincidence.The Republican Reptile Brain, Now with Science!
It turns out your crazy, right-wing uncle has a genetic reason why he shrieks like Chicken Little. Two new studies find specific differences in the brains of liberals and conservatives. The most notable conclusion is that conservative brains are wired toward simple, emotional decision-making. This may explain why so many conservatives can only see two answers for any question, good or bad.
Good and bad are not facts and they are not the solution to all problems. They are value judgments, emotional in nature, different for everyone, and limited in usefulness. But, this sort of simplistic lizard-logic is what allows conservatives employed in government to complain about the very taxes that paid their salary. It is why both Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists can lay claim to God’s backing. And it is why river folks — who will soon line up to collect federal flood relief — will still believe that the federal government is useless.
[ ... ]
Other common beliefs born from the lizard-brain are:
These logical fallacies derive from a toggle-switch brain that can only fall in one of two directions. If it scares me, it is bad. Otherwise, it is good. Unfortunately, like a snarling raccoon backed into a corner, our conservative friends aren’t even capable of understanding their real enemy is fear. They call it “common sense.” And, of course, the problem with common sense is that every fool believes he has it. ...
- Hiding a gun under your shirt is a sign of bravery, rather than an act of cowardice.
- The only way one can be moral is to be instructed by some guy who claims he speaks for God.
- The poor are ruining the country because, somehow, they control public policy.
- Every attempt to perfect equal rights is a slippery slope that leads directly to sex with animals.
- Prosperity trickles down.
- Cooperation for the common good is “Socialism.”
- And my favorite — uneducated people have better ideas than educated people.
He's quite the perceptive fellow. You shouldn't be so fearful of him; he could teach you many things. As for my post, I was simply refuting your snotty insinuation that Bshole had failed in trying to create a novel insult. He wasn't trying to be novel, he was appropriately using well-known information.That is usually a Moonbeam post, glad to see you join him.
This is a new low...distorting science. And for what purpose? To show how vastly superior you are based on your particular political orientation? Please tell me that you aren't that stupid.Doh! You think?
That's the first link from Google, though the studies and the concepts been widely reported and discussed (though perhaps not on Fox and its brethren). We've even had threads about them here. In short, yes, "reptile" has been used already. That's not a coincidence.
We'll assume your feigned outrage, entertaining as it is, is just poor timing on your part. As I just said:This is a new low...distorting science. And for what purpose? To show how vastly superior you are based on your particular political orientation? Please tell me that you aren't that stupid.
Just checking...a lot of people actually believe that kind of pseudo-science bullshit....especially if it helps them feel better about themselves in some twisted way.We'll assume your feigned outrage, entertaining as it is, is just poor timing on your part. As I just said:
"As for my post, I was simply refuting your snotty insinuation that Bshole had failed in trying to create a novel insult. He wasn't trying to be novel, he was appropriately using well-known information.The science is quite real, but I wasn't attempting to discuss that science. It's really not germane to this thread. That specific link was over the top, but quite entertaining. Note that it was literally the first link Google returned, so I used it rather than searching for something more dry, but more objective.
Plus I enjoyed that link. It made me laugh."
Have to give you credit. Perfection is rare in this world, but in your tireless pursuit you've managed to become the perfect idiot. Your village shall become famous.Doh! You think?
That's the first link from Google, though the studies and the concepts been widely reported and discussed (though perhaps not on Fox and its brethren). We've even had threads about them here. In short, yes, "reptile" has been used already. That's not a coincidence.
I do believe that's one of the stupidest, least responsive duhversions you've ever attempted. It has nothing to do with the topic, nor with the specific point to which I was responding. Indeed, it was nothing but you lashing out in frustration, like a three year old throwing a tantrum because Daddy won't give him ice cream. You, too, are quickly becoming Inconsequential. I'm sure it's a proud moment for you.Have to give you credit. Perfection is rare in this world, but in your tireless pursuit you've managed to become the perfect idiot. Your village shall become famous.
Hiding a gun under your shirt is an act of cowardice - 'cause science says so.
Now if all these brilliant leftists could somehow manage to provide their own housing, education, health care, day care . . .
That is one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard. If it is true, we as a country are already fucking dead.ALL POLITICAL GROUPS ARE TAX EXEMPT NON-PROFITS.
Jhnnn,
Is the Tea Party and its ilk the root of the problem? Dirty, polluted, evil organizations run by wealthy shadow people who are the real puppet masters. I see no reason that these vile reptiles be allowed to hide behind shady political entities that pretend to be charitable.
I apologize in advance. I don't mean to offend but cannot figure out how to say this without sounding offensive: You have no understanding of tax exempt organizations, why they are properly exempt, what their purposes are or tax law.
I bolded the word "charitable" above. Most of these groups are not charitable and are not intended to be. Tax law does NOT require that an organization be charitable to be tax exempt. There are nearly 30 different types of organizations specified in tax law that are tax exempt. IIRC, only one type (section 501 c3) requires a group to be charitable. This type of organization, a charitable one, is the only one for which contributions to it are deductible (as charitable contributions, of course).
Many people mistakenly believe that "tax exempt" = "charitable". It does not and never has.
Many tax exempt orgs are tax exempt because they are not a trade or business. They are a means for people to pool their money for some personal purpose that has nothing to do with a trade or business. E.g., my neighbors and I wish to build sidewalks for our streets. We can form a Home Owners Association and contribute our (already taxed) money to it so the sidewalks can be built. That is tax exempt.
Likewise with political contributions. Our money has already been taxed and we can pool it together to support a candidate or issue. How is this unfair or a problem somehow?
Let's look at it this way: An uber rich person like George Soros is free to spend $10 million of his own money on a campaign ad for a candidate or issue he supports. He has already paid income tax on his $10M. He will not be taxed again when he pays for the campaign ad.
Now, if he can do that without being taxed why can't I and my friends (or like minded people) pool our money together without being taxed so we too can raise $10M and can run our campaign ad?
To argue that we must be taxed, but not wealthy people like Soros, is bizarre to me.
So, "we as a country are already fucking dead" might be true but it has nothing to do with tax exempt rules.
Fern
It's an important point and one that I'm aware.
The issue I have is that while you are aware of what Soros does with his political money I'm concerned with the political money from which we have no idea where it came from.
If that anonymity is no big deal then why do political groups seek to get 501c(4) in the first place? They are tax exempt either way.
If you were not always so violently angry, you would not so readily confuse amusement with anger. I am not throwing a tantrum, I am mocking you. In fact, I shall mock you again - the science is real - but let's not discuss it!I do believe that's one of the stupidest, least responsive duhversions you've ever attempted. It has nothing to do with the topic, nor with the specific point to which I was responding. Indeed, it was nothing but you lashing out in frustration, like a three year old throwing a tantrum because Daddy won't give him ice cream. You, too, are quickly becoming Inconsequential. I'm sure it's a proud moment for you.
The Obama appointee implicated in congressional testimony in the IRS targeting scandal met with President Obama in the White House two days before offering his colleagues a new set of advice on how to scrutinize tea party and conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.
IRS chief counsel William Wilkins, who was named in House Oversight testimony by retiring IRS agent Carter Hull as one of his supervisors in the improper targeting of conservative groups, met with Obama in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on April 23, 2012. Wilkins’ boss, then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, visited the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on April 24, 2012, according to White House visitor logs.
On April 25, 2012, Wilkins’ office sent the exempt organizations determinations unit “additional comments on the draft guidance” for approving or denying tea party tax-exempt applications, according to the IRS inspector general’s report.
I apologize in advance. I don't mean to offend but cannot figure out how to say this without sounding offensive: You have no understanding of tax exempt organizations, why they are properly exempt, what their purposes are or tax law.
I bolded the word "charitable" above. Most of these groups are not charitable and are not intended to be. Tax law does NOT require that an organization be charitable to be tax exempt. There are nearly 30 different types of organizations specified in tax law that are tax exempt. IIRC, only one type (section 501 c3) requires a group to be charitable. This type of organization, a charitable one, is the only one for which contributions to it are deductible (as charitable contributions, of course).
Many people mistakenly believe that "tax exempt" = "charitable". It does not and never has.
Many tax exempt orgs are tax exempt because they are not a trade or business. They are a means for people to pool their money for some personal purpose that has nothing to do with a trade or business. E.g., my neighbors and I wish to build sidewalks for our streets. We can form a Home Owners Association and contribute our (already taxed) money to it so the sidewalks can be built. That is tax exempt.
Likewise with political contributions. Our money has already been taxed and we can pool it together to support a candidate or issue. How is this unfair or a problem somehow?
Let's look at it this way: An uber rich person like George Soros is free to spend $10 million of his own money on a campaign ad for a candidate or issue he supports. He has already paid income tax on his $10M. He will not be taxed again when he pays for the campaign ad.
Now, if he can do that without being taxed why can't I and my friends (or like minded people) pool our money together without being taxed so we too can raise $10M and can run our campaign ad?
To argue that we must be taxed, but not wealthy people like Soros, is bizarre to me.
So, "we as a country are already fucking dead" might be true but it has nothing to do with tax exempt rules.
Fern
And we know that how, exactly?Originally Posted by Fern
We all know that's not what they were stopping.
Fern
Many of these groups attempted to gain 501c(3) status, where contributions are a straight non-taxable pass thru, a straight income deduction. 501c(4) groups, at least, require contributors to pay taxes on funds they donate.
If there were no difference, then there would be no point to seeking 501c(3) status.
501c(4) groups are actually subject to lower disclosure standards than 527 political advocacy groups.
The whole fracas hinges on groups' claims to engage in limited political spending to conceal donor identities, as if a Tea Party group set up for the election & disbanded shortly thereafter isn't "really" a political advocacy group.
It starts from a lie & proceeds from there.
You tacitly admit it below (see your comment I bolded). There is no "tax cheating" because all organizations are tax exempt. At most it would be a matter of 'disclosure cheating', if there is such a thing.
But the real point is that the inappropriate program was aimed at only conservative groups (we shall see pending the release of the IRS list). Accordingly you either believe that only conservative cheat, thus liberal groups need not be subjected to such treatment, or believe conservative groups were maliciously targeted.
There are legitimate and appropriate circumstances that a group you may find political can qualify under 501 c3. There are liberal (political) groups who are c3 orgs.
501 c3 covers educational organizations. Accordingly, organizations that are set up to educate on the Constitution can qualify as c3's. It works the same way for liberal issues.
This is well known.
501 c4's can engage in unlimited political advocacy. I.e. unlimited spending on political issues and legislation.
They are limited as regards campaign spending.
Therefor, your problem seems to be with the law, not the activity of such groups as they are doing what is permitted by law. OTOH, it may just be that you oppose their political views and are casting around (unsuccessfully I might add) for some reason to stop them.
Fern
501(c)(4) groups are commonly called "social welfare" organizations that may engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose. Similar restrictions apply to Section 501(c)(5) labor and agricultural groups, and to Section 501(c)(6) business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards and boards of trade.
If you're a tax professional, you're being deliberately disingenuous.
If I, or anybody, makes a contribution to a 501c(3), it's tax deductible. I pay no federal income tax on that amount. It's also anonymous should I so choose.
If I make a contribution to a 501c(4), it's done with after tax money. It may or may not be anonymous, depending.
It's the same with a 527, except that their reporting requirements are more stringent, with no anonymity.
Obfuscatory, and factually incorrect-
-snip-
"Violently angry?" WTF? Kindly show me even one example of me threatening anyone here, let alone becoming violent. I'll let you reptilians serve up the violence. You're apparently wired for it.If you were not always so violently angry,
Is English not you native language, by chance? I didn't suggest anger. I suggested frustration: "lashing out in frustration". You are frustrated because I consistently corner you in your own BS and hold you publicly accountable for it. Like most blowhards, this clearly frustrates you because you are not accustomed to being challenged to support your disinformed nonsense.you would not so readily confuse amusement with anger. I am not throwing a tantrum,
Again, the lack of English comprehension. That wasn't mockery, it was sarcasm and simple insults.I am mocking you. In fact, I shall mock you again -
Now that is mockery, albeit predictably baseless. I know you folks aren't fond of science. Nonetheless it has been objectively shown that the amygdala -- the so-called reptilian, fear centered portion of the brain -- is typically larger in self-professed conservatives than it is in those who call themselves liberal. I can understand why that upsets you, but it is what it is.the science is real - but let's not discuss it!
That's not mockery, it's just dishonesty. Far from seeing only one answer to every question, I am cursed with seeing too many. That I see endless shades of gray, however, does not impair my ability to see when your nonsense is wrong.In fact, I shall mock you a third time: Those who can only see one answer for every question should not mock those whom they think can see two.
Of course.Again - this is amusement, not anger.
Given that his source is Dick Morris, I'd be skeptical. Nonetheless, it's another example of why we need a real, non-partisan investigation to get all the facts out.Well, this is interesting (if true). I'm not familiar with the source and so make no claims about it veracity:
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/22/e...writing-new-targeting-criteria/#ixzz2Zp6QdHzi
Fern
It took a mere two months and eight days for the Obama administration’s spin on the growing scandal of the IRS targeting Tea Party and conservative groups to completely collapse. Let’s rewind to May 10, 2013, when Lois Lerner, the former Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, apologized on behalf of the agency for the targeting scheme that placed additional scrutiny on those tax exemption applications. When she did, she made several key claims.
According to Lerner’s account, “line people” in Cincinnati decided on their own to target Tea Party groups and to send them inappropriate and intrusive questions. When senior IRS officials found out, they imposed rationality on the process and stopped the abuses.
This week, on July 18, the IRS’s own employees demonstrated that this story was utterly, completely false.