IRS APOLOGIZES FOR TARGETING TEA PARTY GROUPS

pandora

I just hope the IRS does not target me... selfish I know but they have been very very good to me
and I hope to keep our rapport going

Bentleyspop

unsung wrote:

unsung wrote:

Kat wrote:

Added: And the people who did this need to be fired. If the IRS is crooked, I don't need to pay taxes, right?

Did you enter into a mutual agreement voluntarily? No? Me neither. But don't pay and they will show up guns a-blazing.

Taxation is theft.

no. theft if theft. taxation is taxation.

When something is taken by force it is theft.

Then stop paying your taxes

inmytree

unsung wrote:

Did you enter into a mutual agreement voluntarily? No? Me neither. But don't pay and they will show up guns a-blazing.

Taxation is theft.

perhaps you should move to a better neighborhood...you know cuz you're a victim of theft...

good luck with the move... :arrow:

pjl44

Jon Stewart weighs in. Not surprisingly, it's brilliant:

http://clashdaily.com/2013/05/stewart-d ... theorists/

puremagic

IRS has been used Congress and the Executive Branch to target people, companies, hell even countries. So why should Tea Party groups applying for tax exemption under 501(c) (3) as charitable organization not get extra attention, especially, since many of them were advocating anti-government activities calling for the overthrow of the current administration by any means necessary.

If anything, We the People should be asking the IRS to let us see how these members of Congress, have become millionaires while still serving as so-called government ‘public servants’.

pjl44

puremagic wrote:

IRS has been used Congress and the Executive Branch to target people, companies, hell even countries. So why should Tea Party groups applying for tax exemption under 501(c) (3) as charitable organization not get extra attention, especially, since many of them were advocating anti-government activities calling for the overthrow of the current administration by any means necessary.

Um...unless you'd like to provide some sources on that statement, I will consider it a figment of your imagination.

JimmyV

pjl44 wrote:

puremagic wrote:

IRS has been used Congress and the Executive Branch to target people, companies, hell even countries. So why should Tea Party groups applying for tax exemption under 501(c) (3) as charitable organization not get extra attention, especially, since many of them were advocating anti-government activities calling for the overthrow of the current administration by any means necessary.

Um...unless you'd like to provide some sources on that statement, I will consider it a figment of your imagination.

Perhaps an exaggeration but definitely not a figment of the imagination. Did Tea Party rhetoric not involve calls (whether they be veiled or not) for revolution? Who were they arguing should be revolted against? The Obama administration.

pjl44

JimmyV wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

puremagic wrote:

IRS has been used Congress and the Executive Branch to target people, companies, hell even countries. So why should Tea Party groups applying for tax exemption under 501(c) (3) as charitable organization not get extra attention, especially, since many of them were advocating anti-government activities calling for the overthrow of the current administration by any means necessary.

Um...unless you'd like to provide some sources on that statement, I will consider it a figment of your imagination.

Perhaps an exaggeration but definitely not a figment of the imagination. Did Tea Party rhetoric not involve calls (whether they be veiled or not) for revolution? Who were they arguing should be revolted against? The Obama administration.

No, they didn't. Sources please.

Edit: I'm not a Tea Party supporter either and generally put them in the same bucket as Occupy Wall Street. I like seeing protest, but don't feel either group had much in the way of focus. The way people project views onto them, though, annoys me.

pjl44

Further, it's really this simple:

If a group is advocating for something illegal, they should be investigated by the police.

If a group is merely advocating a position you don't agree with, it's called a free exchange of ideas.

Nowhere in this equation should a government agency engage in discriminatory practices by words that appear in a group's name. The IRS themselves have admitted this was inappropriate. Congressmen on both sides of the aisle have deemed this inappropriate. Dennis Kucinich believes this is inappropriate. Jon Stewart had a six minute segment about how this is a problem.

Anyone attempting to excuse this because they have a bug up their ass about "The Tea Party" is in a small minority who can't see past their own bigotry.

JimmyV

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

Um...unless you'd like to provide some sources on that statement, I will consider it a figment of your imagination.

Perhaps an exaggeration but definitely not a figment of the imagination. Did Tea Party rhetoric not involve calls (whether they be veiled or not) for revolution? Who were they arguing should be revolted against? The Obama administration.

No, they didn't. Sources please.

Edit: I'm not a Tea Party supporter either and generally put them in the same bucket as Occupy Wall Street. I like seeing protest, but don't feel either group had much in the way of focus. The way people project views onto them, though, annoys me.

It is fiction to say revolution was not a theme of Tea Party protests. Not saying they deserved to be targeted by the IRS, just that claiming revolution was a part of their rhetoric is not a figment of anyone's imagination.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/12/te ... s-brewing/

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/1 ... revolution

http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/89788/

puremagic

pjl44 wrote:

puremagic wrote:

IRS has been used Congress and the Executive Branch to target people, companies, hell even countries. So why should Tea Party groups applying for tax exemption under 501(c) (3) as charitable organization not get extra attention, especially, since many of them were advocating anti-government activities calling for the overthrow of the current administration by any means necessary.

Um...unless you'd like to provide some sources on that statement, I will consider it a figment of your imagination.

Really!!! Seeing that this topic falls under current events, do your own damn research, it shouldn’t be that difficult. Psst!!! , you would had to have been living in a media blackout from 2004 til present and ongoing not to see the sponsorship of these so-called tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charitable organizations behind all those anti-government demonstration targeting the current administration. Several sponsored events publically referenced violence upon the President and his family; harassed members of Congress. These sponsoring organizations make no secret of their anti-government activity, while still enjoying and seeking a tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. This is why they generate the attention of the IRS, the Secret Service, and the FBI.

Congress needs to stop acting like their shocked virgins when the scent being emitted smells like a street gutter.

aerial

Jimmy those links are opinion pieces from 2009....I haven't seen a revolution yet.
I was at the March on Washington in 2009....remember there was not one arrest? not a piece of trash on the ground when it was over....very peaceful....now I have seen videos of union thugs beating people up at some of the rallies.

JimmyV

aerial wrote:

Jimmy those links are opinion pieces from 2009....I haven't seen a revolution yet.
I was at the March on Washington in 2009....remember there was not one arrest? not a piece of trash on the ground when it was over....very peaceful....now I have seen videos of union thugs beating people up at some of the rallies.

My only point was that revolution was part of Tea Party rhetoric. I linked to three pieces where the term was used. It seems clear that revolution was a clear theme of the rhetoric and that it was not a figment of anyone's imagination.

pjl44

JimmyV wrote:

It is fiction to say revolution was not a theme of Tea Party protests. Not saying they deserved to be targeted by the IRS, just that claiming revolution was a part of their rhetoric is not a figment of anyone's imagination.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/12/te ... s-brewing/

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/1 ... revolution

http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/89788/

Every one of those links uses the word "revolution." Is that unique to Tea Party movements? Hmmmmmmm...

http://robertreich.org/post/42193095873

http://www.mikelux.com/?page_id=50

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/2 ... on-Part-II

Now, Jimmy, are those authors also calling for "anti-government activities" or "overthrowing an administration by any means necessary?" Or are they (like in the links you provided) just using a term to speak to a constituency. Did you see anything in your links that advocated for anything beyond a rally, protest, or donation? Anything advocating something illegal?

People have every right to speak out against the government and it should be without fear of reprisal. Again, the fact that the IRS specifically stated that these actions were inappropriate should tell you all you need to know.

Jason P

JimmyV wrote:

My only point was that revolution was part of Tea Party rhetoric. I linked to three pieces where the term was used. It seems clear that revolution was a clear theme of the rhetoric and that it was not a figment of anyone's imagination.

The tenants were Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

I don't recall revolution, as in overthrowing the government, being on the agenda at any time. Laws and rules were respected, even so if begrudgingly.

Unfortunately, in the last couple of years it was hi-jacked into a social right-wing cause by Palin and Bachman.

pjl44

puremagic wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

puremagic wrote:

IRS has been used Congress and the Executive Branch to target people, companies, hell even countries. So why should Tea Party groups applying for tax exemption under 501(c) (3) as charitable organization not get extra attention, especially, since many of them were advocating anti-government activities calling for the overthrow of the current administration by any means necessary.

Um...unless you'd like to provide some sources on that statement, I will consider it a figment of your imagination.

Really!!! Seeing that this topic falls under current events, do your own damn research, it shouldn’t be that difficult. Psst!!! , you would had to have been living in a media blackout from 2004 til present and ongoing not to see the sponsorship of these so-called tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charitable organizations behind all those anti-government demonstration targeting the current administration. Several sponsored events publically referenced violence upon the President and his family; harassed members of Congress. These sponsoring organizations make no secret of their anti-government activity, while still enjoying and seeking a tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. This is why they generate the attention of the IRS, the Secret Service, and the FBI.

Congress needs to stop acting like their shocked virgins when the scent being emitted smells like a street gutter.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

JimmyV

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

It is fiction to say revolution was not a theme of Tea Party protests. Not saying they deserved to be targeted by the IRS, just that claiming revolution was a part of their rhetoric is not a figment of anyone's imagination.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/12/te ... s-brewing/

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/1 ... revolution

http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/89788/

Every one of those links uses the word "revolution." Is that unique to Tea Party movements? Hmmmmmmm...

http://robertreich.org/post/42193095873

http://www.mikelux.com/?page_id=50

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/2 ... on-Part-II

Now, Jimmy, are those authors also calling for "anti-government activities" or "overthrowing an administration by any means necessary?" Or are they (like in the links you provided) just using a term to speak to a constituency. Did you see anything in your links that advocated for anything beyond a rally, protest, or donation? Anything advocating something illegal?

People have every right to speak out against the government and it should be without fear of reprisal. Again, the fact that the IRS specifically stated that these actions were inappropriate should tell you all you need to know.

As I said originally, "anti-government activities" and "overthrowing an administration by any means necessary" could both be considered exaggerations. That revolution was a central theme in Tea Party rhetoric cannot be considered a figment of anyone's imagination. That the idea is kicked around by others in no way changes the fact that it was central to the rhetoric of the Tea Party. That is what I disagreed with you on.

Your last paragraph sounds like you think I am defending the IRS. I have never done that so you may want to take that point up with someone else.

JimmyV

Jason P wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

My only point was that revolution was part of Tea Party rhetoric. I linked to three pieces where the term was used. It seems clear that revolution was a clear theme of the rhetoric and that it was not a figment of anyone's imagination.

The tenants were Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

I don't recall revolution, as in overthrowing the government, being on the agenda at any time. Laws and rules were respected, even so if begrudgingly.

Unfortunately, in the last couple of years it was hi-jacked into a social right-wing cause by Palin and Bachman.

I think the movement gained its greatest notoriety and largest following under Palin and Bachmann. The original Tea Party is a different animal compared to what it became.

aerial

Lois Lerner, the senior executive in charge of the IRS tax exemption department and the federal employee at the center of the exploding scandal over the IRS was given $42,531 in bonuses between 2009 and 2011.

They could have used that money to train some of the idiots that answer the phone at the IRS....

aerial

IRS official Lerner speedily approved exemption for Obama brother’s ‘charity’


Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the center of the decision to target tea party groups for burdensome tax scrutiny, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a shady charity headed by the president’s half-brother that operated illegally for years.

According to the organization’s filings, Lerner approved the foundation’s tax status within a month of filing, an unprecedented timeline that stands in stark contrast to conservative organizations that have been waiting for more than three years, in some cases, for approval.

Lerner also appears to have broken with the norms of tax-exemption approval by granting retroactive tax-exempt status to Malik Obama’s organization.



Read more:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-official-lerner-approved-exemption-for-obama-brothers-charity/#ixzz2TOrnMO8m





IRS sued for improperly seizing the medical records of 10 million Americans

Read more:


http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/15/irs-sued-for-improperly-seizing-the-medical-records-of-10-million-americans/#ixzz2TOsmO1Nb