The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-15-2013, 02:22 PM   #126
Smiling Assassin27
Helmet Tester
 
Smiling Assassin27's Avatar
 
Hurry Hurry

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 12,656

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Hemanuel Sandrs
Default

This dude's a genius:

Quote:
As directed, Ryun followed up with the IRS in April 2012, and was told that Media Trackers' application was still under review.

When September 2012 arrived with still no word from the IRS, Ryun determined that Media Trackers would likely never obtain standalone non-profit status, and he tried a new approach: Starting over. He applied for permanent non-profit status for a separate group called Greenhouse Solutions, a pre-existing organization that was reaching the end of its determination period.

The IRS approved Greenhouse Solutions' request for non-profit status in three weeks.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/c...193457897.html
Smiling Assassin27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:39 PM   #127
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,641
Default

When the IRS targeted liberals


While few are defending the Internal Revenue Service for targeting some 300 conservative groups, there are two critical pieces of context missing from the conventional wisdom on the “scandal.” First, at least from what we know so far, the groups were not targeted in a political vendetta — but rather were executing a makeshift enforcement test (an ugly one, mind you) for IRS employees tasked with separating political groups not allowed to claim tax-exempt status, from bona fide social welfare organizations. Employees are given almost zero official guidance on how to do that, so they went after Tea Party groups because those seemed like they might be political. Keep in mind, the commissioner of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.

The second is that while this is the first time this kind of thing has become a national scandal, it’s not the first time such activity has occurred.

“I wish there was more GOP interest when I raised the same issue during the Bush administration, where they audited a progressive church in my district in what look liked a very selective way,” California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on MSNBC Monday. “I found only one Republican, [North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones], that would join me in calling for an investigation during the Bush administration. I’m glad now that the GOP has found interest in this issue and it ought to be a bipartisan concern.”The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.The church, which said progressive activism was in its “DNA,” hired a powerful Washington lawyer and enlisted the help of Schiff, who met with the commissioner of the IRS twice and called for a Government Accountability Office investigation, saying the IRS audit violated the First Amendment and was unduly targeting a political opponent of the Bush administration. “My client is very concerned that the close coordination undertaken by the IRS allowed partisan political concerns to direct the course of the All Saints examination,” church attorney Marcus Owens, who is widely considered one of the country’s leading experts on this area of the law, said at the time. In 2007, the IRS closed the case, decreeing that the church violated rules preventing political intervention, but it did not revoke its nonprofit status.

And while All Saints came under the gun, conservative churches across the country were helping to mobilize voters for Bush with little oversight. In 2006, citing the precedent of All Saints, “a group of religious leaders accused the Internal Revenue Service yesterday of playing politics by ignoring its complaint that two large churches in Ohio are engaging in what it says are political activities, in violation of the tax code,” the New York Times reported at the time. The churches essentially campaigned for a Republican gubernatorial candidate, they alleged, and even flew him on one of their planes.

Meanwhile, Citizens for Ethics in Washington filed two ethics complaints against a church in Minnesota. “You know we can’t publicly endorse as a church and would not for any candidate, but I can tell you personally that I’m going to vote for Michele Bachmann,” pastor Mac Hammond of the Living Word Christian Center in Minnesota said in 2006 before welcoming her to the church. The IRS opened an audit into the church, but it went nowhere after the church appealed the audit on a technicality.

And it wasn’t just churches. In 2004, the IRS went after the NAACP, auditing the nation’s oldest civil rights group after its chairman criticized President Bush for being the first sitting president since Herbert Hoover not to address the organization. “They are saying if you criticize the president we are going to take your tax exemption away from you,” then-chairman Julian Bond said. “It’s pretty obvious that the complainant was someone who doesn’t believe George Bush should be criticized, and it’s obvious of their response that the IRS believes this, too.”In a letter to the IRS, Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel, Pete Stark and John Conyers wrote: “It is obvious that the timing of this IRS examination is nothing more than an effort to intimidate the members of the NAACP, and the communities the organization represents, in their get-out-the-vote effort nationwide.”

Then, in 2006, the Wall Street Journal broke the story of a how a little-known pressure group called Public Interest Watch — which received 97 percent of its funds from Exxon Mobile one year — managed to get the IRS to open an investigation into Greenpeace. Greenpeace had labeled Exxon Mobil the “No. 1 climate criminal.” The IRS acknowledged its audit was initiated by Public Interest Watch and threatened to revoke Greenpeace’s tax-exempt status, but closed the investigation three months later.

As the Journal reporter, Steve Stecklow, later said in an interview, “This comes against a backdrop where a number of conservative groups have been attacking nonprofits and NGOs over their tax-exempt status. There have been hearings on Capitol Hill. There have been a number of conservative groups in Washington who have been quite critical.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when...eted_liberals/
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:43 PM   #128
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,355

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Hypocrisy,is something the right doesn't worry about.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:44 PM   #129
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,641
Default

Check out the date righties


Democrats Were Targets in Inquiries, Panel Is Told
By PHILIP SHENON
Published: October 24, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 — Richard L. Thornburgh, attorney general in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, charged Tuesday that political reasons motivated the Justice Department to open corruption investigations against Democrats in Mr. Thornburgh’s home state, Pennsylvania.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Thornburgh became the first former Republican attorney general to join with Democratic lawmakers to suggest that the Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales had singled out Democratic politicians for prosecution.
“The citizens of the United States must have confidence that the department is conducting itself in a fair and impartial manner without actual political influence or the appearance of political influence,” said Mr. Thornburgh, who is now in private practice. He is defending the former elected Democratic

His unusually harsh criticism of fellow Republicans was directed specifically at the United States attorney in Pittsburgh, Mary Beth Buchanan, who was director of the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, based in Washington, in 2004 and 2005. That office has come under scrutiny for its role in the dismissal of United States attorneys last year, in some cases for what appear to have been partisan reasons.

“It has been and remains the practice of the United States Attorney’s Office to investigate and prosecute individuals who violate federal law without regard to their political affiliation,” Ms. Buchanan said in a written statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/wa...ute.html?_r=1&
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:45 PM   #130
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Hypocrisy,is something the right doesn't worry about.
Yep.where is Barry? that guy loves to scream hypocrisy.
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:46 PM   #131
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You kids are funny. One says we shouldn't comment at all until every fact is out on the table. The other says we should only talk about how to fix a problem we don't even fully understand yet because all the facts aren't out on the table.

I don't usually subscribe to the further-regulate-and-reform approach to this sort of thing. Government runs farthest amok when it is charged to do things it never should have been doing in the first place.

The mere fact that they have to ask "what kind of speech is tax exempt" is your first clue that something isn't quite right.
Please elaborate. What exactly is the government not supposed to be doing in this case? Offering tax exemptions? Or should they offer exemptions to any organization that applies for it? Or are you insinuating that the government has no business taxing at all?

I'm curious to hear your response. A direct response would be nice, but I will settle for one of your traditional skip-to-my-loo responses.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:51 PM   #132
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
Yep.where is Barry? that guy loves to scream hypocrisy.
No doubt.

He'll be on here in a day or two after these posts have fallen back a few pages and he thinks everyone has forgotten about them. Then he'll come in here and make his usual claims, not responding directly to anyone and shouting loudly in the general direction of the right (but about the left, of course), as if none of it had already been pointed out.

It's his MO. He's one of those yippy dogs everyone in the neighborhood wants to step on, but the two neighbors on either side don't say anything about so they don't piss off the owner.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:53 PM   #133
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,795

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
CNN is reporting that they have identified two "rogue" employees who began this adventure after the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United.
Right, we will never know who they are and they will voluntarily resign and receive 10 years severance pay with automatic pay raise adjustments and then be allowed to take full retirement with benefits for life.
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:56 PM   #134
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,641
Default

hey pony are you aoutraged about the abuse of government power during the bush years? A simple yes or no would suffice.
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:57 PM   #135
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
Right, we will never know who they are and they will voluntarily resign and receive 10 years severance pay with automatic pay raise adjustments and then be allowed to take full retirement with benefits for life.
Sounds a lot like Nixon.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:07 PM   #136
Smiling Assassin27
Helmet Tester
 
Smiling Assassin27's Avatar
 
Hurry Hurry

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 12,656

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Hemanuel Sandrs
Default

Quote:
Ali Weinberg ‏@AliNBCNews 2m

Holder: "I haven't been treated with a lot of respect... this isn't a personal thing, but I am the Attorney General of the United States!"
That is frickin' priceless.
Smiling Assassin27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:08 PM   #137
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Please elaborate. What exactly is the government not supposed to be doing in this case? Offering tax exemptions? Or should they offer exemptions to any organization that applies for it? Or are you insinuating that the government has no business taxing at all?

I'm curious to hear your response. A direct response would be nice, but I will settle for one of your traditional skip-to-my-loo responses.
Two separate questions. I personally don't believe the government should tax any non-profit.

But if it's deemed necessary to do so, it certainly shouldn't be based on some fluid government definition of community benefit. That's always in the eye of the beholder (and always subject to abuse) It would be better to tax all non-profits than it is to selectively subject some of them to some kind of political purity test.

You're either a for-profit, or you aren't. The rationale is really none of the government's business.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:16 PM   #138
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Two separate questions. I personally don't believe the government should tax any non-profit.

But if it's deemed necessary to do so, it certainly shouldn't be based on some fluid government definition of community benefit. That's always in the eye of the beholder (and always subject to abuse) It would be better to tax all non-profits than it is to selectively subject some of them to some kind of political purity test.

You're either a for-profit, or you aren't. The rationale is really none of the government's business.
I agree, and since it's nearly impossible to distinguish how non-profits use their money, and to keep them from accepting money they use in political activity, I say tax them all.

Tax the NAACP.

Tax PETA.

Tax all churches.

Tax, tax, tax. They're already politically active, and everyone knows it. The box is already opened. Might as well get the money while we can.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:16 PM   #139
Smiling Assassin27
Helmet Tester
 
Smiling Assassin27's Avatar
 
Hurry Hurry

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 12,656

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Hemanuel Sandrs
Default

Quote:
President Barack Obama’s executive staff reviewed Watchdog’s news website in record numbers at precisely the moment when Internal Revenue Service visits to the same site spiked, Watchdog.org’s analytics show.

A similar report reveals that the Executive Office of the President and IRS were the source of a similar December traffic spike on the website of Watchdog.org, the online news network of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. (Updated: an earlier version of this incorrectly reported that traffic spiked in January.)

The White House has said that IRS reviews of conservative nonprofits were procedurally “inappropriate on the part of fairly low-level agents.

This new data suggests at least a coincidence of interests in Watchdog.
Man, the president's gonna be ticked when he watches the news and finds out about this.

http://watchdog.org/84833/white-hous...og-in-january/
Smiling Assassin27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:18 PM   #140
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,795

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

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.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/ir...thers-charity/
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:23 PM   #141
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
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.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/ir...thers-charity/
were any of the tea baggers denied tax exempt status?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:32 PM   #142
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,641
Default

let's say there is a group called Teabaggers R Us, and they hold rallies, and HIRE speakers and celebrities. Then they want to be tax exempt. How should these groups not be scrutinized again?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:36 PM   #143
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
let's say there is a group called Teabaggers R Us, and they hold rallies, and HIRE speakers and celebrities. Then they want to be tax exempt. How should these groups not be scrutinized again?
What about any of that would disqualify them? Were the speakers saying things you no like?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:45 PM   #144
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
were any of the tea baggers denied tax exempt status?
If a black person comes into a store and asks for help, but they just ignore him until he leaves, did they refuse to sell to him?

If a white person comes in and instantly gets help would that show them to be playing favorites and unfairly treating blacks?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:48 PM   #145
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
What about any of that would disqualify them? Were the speakers saying things you no like?
My point is these groups have a ton of cash, why should they just be tax exempt?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:49 PM   #146
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
If a black person comes into a store and asks for help, but they just ignore him until he leaves, did they refuse to sell to him?

If a white person comes in and instantly gets help would that show them to be playing favorites and unfairly treating blacks?
are you high again?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:49 PM   #147
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,365

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
Right, we will never know who they are and they will voluntarily resign and receive 10 years severance pay with automatic pay raise adjustments and then be allowed to take full retirement with benefits for life.
You should read up on CSRS and FERS before sounding like a retard.

Last edited by Requiem; 05-15-2013 at 04:18 PM..
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 03:54 PM   #148
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
If a black person comes into a store and asks for help, but they just ignore him until he leaves, did they refuse to sell to him?

If a white person comes in and instantly gets help would that show them to be playing favorites and unfairly treating blacks?
are you high again?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 04:00 PM   #149
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
My point is these groups have a ton of cash, why should they just be tax exempt?
Many charities and non-profits have tons of cash. Bill Gates' foundation is tax exempt, as are all of Warren Buffett's various shelt... err I mean "charities"
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 04:01 PM   #150
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,299
Default

Just answer it. You seem to think its ok for the IRS to stall, not serve, hinder conservative apps as long as they don't outright say no we don't serve you.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:02 AM.


Denver Broncos