This message was self-deleted by its author

[devilgrrl]

This message was self-deleted by its author (devilgrrl) on Sat Aug 17, 2013, 12:54 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[djean111]

1. Me either.

[Blue_Tires]

2. I have no problem with the IRS going after those

playing fast and loose with hundreds of millions of illegal funding through money laundering, do-nothing PACs, fake charities, foundations that exist only on paper, offshore accounts, etc. etc...

[homegirl]

25. and add

All property owned by religious institutions, only exclusion the place of worship. As an example the Archdicese of San Francisco owns more than 2000 single family homes, non are taxed. I am sure this is repeated all across the country. The tenants who live in those homes utilize city services but the Archdiocese doesn't contribute to the property tax base to provide those services.

Religion is a business and should be taxed especaily when they preach politics from the pulpit.

[calimary]

109. Welcome to DU, homegirl!

Glad you're here! I think it's a worthy pursuit - making DAMN SURE that all these "foundations" and "organizations" and "institutes" and "universities" are really on the level and not just covers for propaganda. TOTALLY religions should be taxed when they preach politics from the pulpit. Especially as overtly as they do. You can try speaking in parables and metaphors and illustrations but remember what He said: render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's and to God those things that are God's. He didn't say make sure you render to both those together. Seems He was making a pretty deliberate and intentional distinction.

Religion has no place telling people how to vote or for whom to vote. I'm all for making religion relevant to our times. But NOT when it comes to meddling in people's politics. Funny how, too, when religion meddles in a positive way - as when JP2 told dubya "if you go into Iraq, you go without God" - then it's considered unworthy of heeding.

I think a lot of these teabagger groups are just trying to avoid having contributions taxed. Well, if it's not deductible to give to the RNC, then it shouldn't be deductible to give to Tea Party "Patriots." If they want to play politics, let them pay for the privilege like the rest of us civilians do. Religions as well.

[kentuck]

3. But the question should be: Why didn't they?

Was it because most of them were conservative in nature and they were intimidated by them? They did not do their jobs.

[JaneyVee]

4. Gotta start somewhere.

Every tax dollar avoided equals less school books, food aid, healthcare, and more debt & deficit.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Tax evasion is illegal anyway

whereas tax avoidance isn't. Both should be pursued anyway.

[codemoguy]

7. I don't understand....

if 'tax avoidance' isn't illegal, why pursue those who practice it?...choosing to invest in tax free bonds is tax avoidance...

[dipsydoodle]

8. In general

tax avoidance is abuse of the relavant tax laws and demonstrates the need to rewrite those laws. Investing in tax free bonds isn't necessarily classed as avoidance anyway.

[codemoguy]

9. I see what you're saying...

so it wouldn't be the IRS pursuing such people so much as Congress tightening up laws...thanks

[dipsydoodle]

10. The main issue internationally

is that of the seven or so large auditing firms being involved in any way, shape or form in the writing of tax laws. Allowing such enables them to be able to advise clients on how to legally circumvent those laws aka avoidance.

[Ednahilda]

27. Many war tax protesters

use tax avoidance techniques so that they are not paying tribute money to the monster that is our military-industrial complex. Let's not make it harder for them.

http://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php

[dipsydoodle]

33. You're talking about

Joe Normal individuals who are the last likely to be targetted. I mean the rich who are into it bigtime.

[Ednahilda]

38. You're right, there is a big difference,

but I'm not sure that the focus would stay on only rich people. I can't believe that there would never be 'mission creep'.

[tavalon]

39. Not true

My tax person said she has never in her life seen so many levys and liens going out to the average incomed in all her years working with taxes. I was one of them - and I will admit to procrastinating on trying to figure out why they weren't counting my HSA and FSA for the last three years. I guess they really are trying to balance the budget on the backs of all of us who make less than $250,000.

[lastlib]

35. +1!

[oldhippie]

56. I am having trouble with your definitions ......

I buy tax free municipal bonds to avoid the tax. How is that not classified as avoidance?

I always understood that tax evasion was illegal activities, and that tax avoidance was being in compliance with the tax law to lower (or avoid) one's taxes. Like buying minicipal bonds, or taking advantage of a federal energy tax credit, or using any of many tax provisions that were enacted by Congress to encourage investment in certain activities or behavior.

What exactly is your definition of tax "avoidance"? What do you consider "abuse" of relevant tax laws? If it's legal, is it abuse?

[chimpymustgo]

6. Thank you!!!

[Enrique]

11. that isn't what they were doing n/t

[Iliyah]

12. Well targeting

tax-exempt groups is what the IRS does anyways, I personally don't approve but its nothing new.

Most Americans don't like what Tea Party is and they may side with the IRS on this one, just sayin.

Thats why GOPers are tying Pres O with this by saying that its political.

[onenote]

13. Anti war groups have a long history of advocating tax resistance

Are you saying you have no problem with the IRS targeting anti-war groups?

http://www.warresisters.org/node/328


I have no problem with the IRS going after groups where there is evidence that they are violating the tax laws. But I do have a problem with the IRS going after groups based on their names or based on advocacy speech. At this point, I don't think we know enough about how the IRS treatment of tea party groups came about.

[Chan790]

58. I have no problem with the IRS targeting *any* organization whose positions belie a disposition...

towards tax fraud when it comes to applications for tax-exemption under sections 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 of the tax code.

[iamthebandfanman]

90. Shhhh! how dare you!

dontcha know that since none of us like the tea party that youre just suppose to quiety (or enthusiastically , in this case) celebrate a NON POLITICAL entity such the IRS singling out certain groups because of non tax related criteria??

[gordianot]

14. I want to see Mitt Romney and his ilk broke, penniless, discredited and in prison.

Confiscate and send his horse to the cannery, wipe that smug self righteous grin off his face, mess up his hair and turn it gray, distribute all his funds government coffers.

Make it impossible for such a wealthy sack of criminal financial shit to ever attempt to buy public office again. Treat the mega wealthy criminals the same as if they were armed criminal after all the pen mightier than the sword. No more amnesty for not paying taxes. Brand Romney and similar blood suckers such as the Koch brothers as the "Taker Class". Make them pay taxes at the same rate as they did under Eisenhower or for that matter Ronald Reagan.

[siligut]

21. This is my hope also. nt

[baldguy]

15. I have no problem with the IRS going after those Tea Party groups, either.

Because a lot of them are scams. If the Teabaggers were honest, they'd be thankful that the govt was making sure people's donations for political advocacy were actually going to political advocacy, rather than hot tubs & private jets for the executives.

[meow2u3]

24. In fact, I think the IRS should redouble their efforts

to crack down on Tea Party tax scams. Tea Party groups should be audited, especially since they're all newly formed organizations who openly brag about abusing the tax system. They've been trying to hide behind the 501 (c)(4) tax exemption to promote an overtly political agenda and should be investigated.

The more I hear of this IRS investigation, the more I'm convinced they're doing their jobs as standard procedure. Tea Party types are just crying foul.

[GoCubsGo]

30. Yep. Ed Schultz is doing a pretty good job of explaining what is probably going on.

The IRS apparently categorizes groups based on tax law. Thanks to Citizens United, there's a new category of supposed "non-profit" groups. They're just sorting them out. And, as Ed has been repeatedly pointing out today, if they are did not break any tax laws, they have nothing to worry about. I strongly suspect that many of them ARE breaking the law, and that this pissing and moaning is just a deflection from that.

On edit: I don't completely understand the whole thing, and I am probably not doing a good job of conveying what Ed has been saying. I'm sure there are others here who can clarify the whole thing. I just think the whole thing is just more right-wing BS.

[DirtyDawg]

16. Not to mention...

...effin armed overthrow of the government. Target the s$$t out of em, and I mean for drones - they can have all the AR 15s and ammo they want, just keep track of where they are.

[kestrel91316]

17. Neither do I. Who was the bank robber who, when asked

why he robbed banks, answered "because that's there the money is"? Well, it's the same principle.

[Half-Century Man]

102. William Sutton

Willie Sutton..today's history tidbit

[X_Digger]

18. Just like you have no problem with the DEA targeting medical mj facilities, right? n/t

[FarCenter]

19. Tax exempt political organizations should not exist -- the loophole for the rich should be closed

If a person in the 35% incremental tax bracket gives a political cause $100, the government is subsidizing that person's political speech by $35.

If a person in the 15% incremental tax bracket gives a political cause $100, the government is subsidizing that person's political speech by $15.

So the "tax exempt" organization feature in the tax code is susidizing the speech of wealthy people more than the speech of poor people.

Plus, since wealthy people give more to tax exempt political organizations, the advantage they get is even greater.

[SunSeeker]

22. Excellent point. nt

[mimi85]

20. I would love to

take a "tax evation," however I usually take a less expensive "vacation".

[cali]

23. what crap. got any evidence that any of these groups were advocating tax evasion?

it's vile to see so many DUers supporting political targeting by the IRS.

and it demonstrates awesome stupidity.

fuck.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. +1

more stupid "our team right or wrong" bullshit.

[cali]

40. it's fucking endless. from drones to being OK with the cozy corporate crap

to this.

fucking moronic

[premium]

49. I agree,

but if the IRS were targeting liberal org., there would be a firestorm here.
Hypocrisy at it's worse.

[richmwill]

78. You're right

It is ugly to see. Exactly as you say- the same who excuse this and applaud it are the same people who would lose it the most if it were the IRS targeting Progressive groups during a Republican administration. I even talked to a Progressive friend about this today who laughed about this and said "Well, they deserve whatever bad happens to them because they're just stupid and wrong". Very dangerous thinking, when the tables turn.

[DonCoquixote]

87. If a group applies for TAX EXEMPT status

They can and should accpet great scrutiny, especially if they take money from churches, and if they are advocating support for a party. This is not like Mother Mary's soup kitchen for Homeless kids.

[cali]

91. fine. then target ALL such groups equally, dear. But they didn't.

duh.

[DonCoquixote]

93. they sure targeted the left

and has it occured to you that since citzen united went down, most of the new "non priofts formed" are the tea party ones? They have the money.

[cali]

94. no, the tea party is hardly the only ones with money

look, this is beyond stupid. How about targeting communists? or anarchists? Justify this shit and you're justifying all political targeting. It's so stupid, I'm aghast at DUers defending it on any level. I probably shouldn't be so shocked by the the abject stupidity on display, but I am.

[DonCoquixote]

99. OK, let me say this another way

Fact: after citizen united, there were many more groups that became Non-profits, as the very nature of that ruling relaxed what could be called a non-profit.

Fact: most of these groups were Tea party groups that could not have been formed the way they did pre citizens united

Fact: a lot of scrutiny would be happening, for the same reason that, if you had a bumper crop of potatoes, you would be looking at more potatoes than normal. We had a bumper cop of non profits.

Now, if the democrats had formed more nonprofits (as frankly, they should have done) than they would get scrutinez too, but admittedly, the ones who had the lead thanks to CU were the GOP.

[AngryOldDem]

95. I wonder what the response would be here if it were the left that were being targeted.

This is wrong, no matter what group it is.

The apologist crap I read on here sometimes is just mind-boggling. All depends on whose ox is being gored, I guess.

[DonCoquixote]

100. remeber Acorn?

Our ox normally gets gored. Our democrats are the ones that resign, unlike the Sanfords and Vitters. And frankly,as I said in another reply, a large part of why there are more tea party groups examined is simply because there were are lot more tea party groups forming after Citizens united. If Ford starts making and selling most of the cars on the road, than there would be more Fords ticketed, but that would be a side effect of the fact there are more fords, period.

[aristocles]

26. The IRS is arguably the most hated government agency.

The Administration must deal with this issue quickly and decisively.

[ButchT]

28. I have a problem with it.

I have a problem with the IRS going after those who advocate tax evasion. "Advocate" = "Free Speech" = "First Amendment Right"! So going after them merely because they advocate is a violation of their rights.

Shall I bring up the administration that went after pacifists for advocating peace?

Now if these organizations are evading tax, that's different.

[harun]

71. They go after any and all advocates of what they don't approve of. Wake up.

[DesMoinesDem]

29. These groups were openly advocating tax evation (sic)? Where are your examples?

Why didn't you provide some examples of these groups that were targeted advocating tax evasion? It was done openly so it should be easy to do. Oh that's right. You just kinda made that up.

[moondust]

37. It's implicit if not expressly stated.

The whole "Tea Party" theme is quite obviously derived from historical events rooted in resistance to paying taxes.

[DesMoinesDem]

43. The OP stated that these groups OPENLY ADVOCATED tax evation (sic).

Not implicitly. OPENLY. And I don't see any implicit advocacy for not paying taxes from these groups. These tea party groups want to change the laws to reduce taxes, not get people to just stop paying taxes. After all, if these groups thought people shouldn't pay taxes, why would they themselves be filing any paperwork with the IRS. It makes no sense. But the point of my post was that the OP is devoid of any facts and they are just making things up.

[moondust]

44. "These tea party groups want to change the laws to reduce taxes"

Got a link for that?

[DesMoinesDem]

45. www.google.com

[moondust]

46. No thanks.

It seems being "devoid of any facts" and "making things up" isn't limited to the OP.

[DesMoinesDem]

47. Just because YOU are ignorant of something and too lazy to google it doesn't mean it isn't a fact.

From the about pages of the first three tea party groups on google

teaparty.org
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.

teapartypatriots.org
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY means not overspending, and not burdening our children and grandchildren with our bills. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: “the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity [is] swindling futurity on a large scale.” A more fiscally responsible government will take fewer taxes from our paychecks.

teapartyexpress.org
Tea Party Express is proud to stand for six simple principles:

No more bailouts
Reduce the size and intrusiveness of government
Stop raising our taxes
Repeal Obamacare
Cease out-of-control spending
Bring back American prosperity


That these groups want to reduce taxes didn't suddenly become a fact because I googled them for you. It was always a fact. Your ignorance doesn't create truth. It just makes you look stupid.

[moondust]

48. That's all you had to do.

Blockhead.

Welcome to ignore.

[DesMoinesDem]

50. You would have had to do far less but were to lazy to do so.

Instead of spending 45 seconds checking out a couple links on google you wanted me to do it for you and copy and paste the results here for you. And when I didn't you called me a liar. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

[ThoughtCriminal]

66. If they are claiming to be 501c3 exempt

and then participating in partisan politics and lobbying, they ARE evading taxes themselves.

Know of any Tea Party groups that do anything but engage in politics?

[DesMoinesDem]

68. Straw man argument. Provide an example of a group OPENLY ADVOCATING tax evasion.

[ThoughtCriminal]

69. They ARE committing tax evasion

Gee, that's like saying asking if a bank robber is openly advocating bank robbery.

Yeah, pretty much.

If anything the IRS has bent WAY over backward in ignoring the fact that virtually all of these groups lie about their purpose and activities.

[DesMoinesDem]

70. Openly advocating something and secretly (or openly) doing something aren't anywhere close

to being the same thing. Furthermore, your accusation that they are evading taxes is dubious at best, but I have no desire to argue with your straw man.

[ThoughtCriminal]

72. You're adorable

Doing something and openly advocating something are different? That should be a motto for hypocrites everywhere! Classic.

Find an example, anywhere, 501c3 or 501c4 of a Tea Party group anywhere that is PRIMARILY doing social welfare, scientific, or literary work as opposed to conducting pure right-wing partisan hate politics. Even one example. Anywhere.

No desire to argue, but I'll bet you'll just keep replying in hopes that I go to bed earlier (probably right).

[DesMoinesDem]

73. LOL.

You think people rob banks hoping that other people will see it and rob a bank? LOL. I think they just want money. You obviously don't even understand what advocate means, let alone openly.

And no, I'm not going to argue with your strawman of whether or not these groups are evading taxes. I trust the IRS to handle it. Not some dude on the internet that has no information AT ALL on the matter and who doesn't even understand what advocate means.

[ThoughtCriminal]

74. No examples?

Didn't think so. None of these groups is doing a dimes worth of "Charitable" or "Social" work. It's ALL political ALL the time. They are breaking the law and getting away with it and that in turn encourages others to do the same.

As for the IRS, they have been politically bullied into letting these hyper-political organizations get away with a tax-exempt status. It's just a huge pipeline for right-wing billionaires and corporations to pour money into politics without disclosure. That is what all the outrage is about. The political right does not want that cash flow scrutinized because if the 501 status is revoked, a light gets shined on where the money is coming from.

So what is your position here? Is it just parsing the OP's wording because you think that breaking the law in order to hide the donor's identities is somehow different or more acceptable than advocating doing the same thing? Or are you taking the position that the Tea Party organizations are really not political and primarily charitable and therefore in compliance?

[DesMoinesDem]

75. How many times do I have to tell you I'm not arguing with your straw man?

[ThoughtCriminal]

77. Isn't calling it a "straw man" an argument?

Breaking the law and getting away with it absolutely encourages others to do the same. Period. Debate that, go to bed or find another thread.

[DesMoinesDem]

79. Again, you do not understand what advocate means.

Secretly breaking the law is NOT OPEN AVOCATION, no matter how many times you say it is. PERIOD. Even openly breaking the law isn't advocating. The bank robber isn't advocating anything. To say he is is laughable. Note go to bed. Your arguments are terrible.

[ThoughtCriminal]

80. Straw Man

[DesMoinesDem]

81. I know exactly what a straw man argument looks like.

It's the argument you made. Time for you to look up advocate and openly.

[ThoughtCriminal]

82. Oh I get it now.

You're one of those people who think the last kid on the playground who says "Does to" is the winner.

You have made no valid points. Refuted nothing. If you do not understand the concept advocacy through action and example, I don't think I can find anything meaningful with further discussion.

Welcome to my very small ignore list (#3 in 11 years). Feel free to make it mutual.

Post away. I doubt anybody on this board will care what you post after this.

[renate]

32. so did they "go after" / audit these groups, or just examine their tax-exempt status more carefully?

My understanding (which is limited, so I'm really asking, not telling) is that they didn't audit these groups more often but they were stricter about whether or not those political groups would be granted tax-exempt status.

I'm not saying that's okay, but (again, from my understanding) it's not as though the IRS went out of their way to persecute these groups with audits; they just made extra sure they qualified for that special status. It's still wrong, IMO, but not as horrible an abuse of power as I had assumed.

[cynatnite]

34. Going after political groups for voicing their opinion is wrong. Period. n/t

[Savannahmann]

41. Perhaps you should check with President Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/politics/irs-conservative-targeting/index.html

[moondust]

42. "extra scrutiny" does not necessarily mean "going after"

I don't know exactly what the IRS did, but asking for further clarification of somebody's status and activities before granting them special economic advantages does not strike me as being out of bounds.

[joeglow3]

51. How about running license plates of all minority owned cars

That is just extra scrutiny and the owner is none the wiser (doesn't impact them at all).

The reality is that if there was "extra scrutiny" for one group and not another in this case, it was wrong.

[moondust]

53. In that case,

how long will it be until the SEC is not allowed to monitor or investigate things like suspicious Wall Street activity or international technology transfers because that would involve "extra scrutiny" of some but not others?

[joeglow3]

54. In that case,

what if they only did that for those they knew were liberals? The issue is not if extra scrutiny is ever warranted. The issue is if it is disproportionately administered based on political leanings of those involved.

[moondust]

55. Oh gosh.

Jeff Skilling and Enron are now saying they were singled out for extra scrutiny because of their political leanings. Now what?

I'm much more concerned with what happens after the scrutiny. In other words, did the extra scrutiny lead to any unjust or unwarranted penalties? I haven't heard of any.

[joeglow3]

62. So, it gets back to you are cool with stopping all black men

You are not concerned with targeting them. Just what it netted them.

[moondust]

63. Of course not.

I'm inclined to agree with post #30 that the IRS may have been trying to sort out these new Tea Party groups and new tax-exempt classifications and who was entitled to what tax breaks. If the "Tea Party" was just one monolithic group then it wouldn't be necessary to sort it all out, but there seem to be a lot of different Tea Party groups and heaven knows what differences may exist between them. I can easily understand how sorting them all out may require some extra scrutiny/clarification.

[joeglow3]

67. And I would agree if it was limited to that

However, it extended beyond that to mission statements, etc.

Honestly, I think the fact that our administration has condemned it so vehemently speaks volumes.

[Apophis]

52. I have no problem with that either.

[indepat]

57. Republics will squeal like stuck pigs when government looks into the shenanigans of their tax exempt

entities or domestic right-wing extremist groups brandishing hate, insurrection, sedition and even assault weapons: their privileged status is sacrosanct.

[BlueCheese]

59. Selective enforcement is a terrifying thing.

Law enforcement absolutely has to be as neutral as possible when it comes to these things.

[alc]

60. taxes are only part of the fiscal situation

Maybe the IRS should go after groups who try to expand federal payments. Those who try to educate the population on EBT cards, free phones, medicare and a variety of other federal programs are "costing" the government money. Shutting them down or making them put resources toward IRS audits instead of their mission will help our balance sheets. I wouldn't be surprised if a republican presidents thinks it would help more to audit them than the tea party. And don't get him started on union "abuses" and how much better off the budget would be without unions extorting money from the government.

Or maybe the IRS should be even-handed in their treatment of organizations and audit selections. And maybe Democrats should condemn this action in order to have some credibility when it looks like certain groups they favor are being audited more than others in the future.

[TheKentuckian]

64. What is so difficult to grasp that you encapsulated there is beyond me.

Where the hell did all these Mayberry Nixons come from?

[Rex]

61. You mean you are not mad at them for doing their job?

Same, let them go after tax cheats. From what I've read, we need the money.

[ThoughtCriminal]

65. Conservative contradiction on 501c3

501 (c)3 exemptions are limited to religious, educational, charitable, scientific and literary organizations and are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying.

Tea Party groups have been openly flaunting those rules and it require a huge amount of willful disregard to recognize that they are anything but hyper-partisan political attack organizations. The GOP has a Tea Party Caucus in Congress for crying out loud!

So here's the deal, the Republicans are charging that these groups are politically targeted while at the same time claiming that they are exempt because they are not political organizations.

[cherokeeprogressive]

83. I thought it was 501 c(4) n/t

[ThoughtCriminal]

85. Apparently Both

Last edited Tue May 14, 2013, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)

But my understanding 501c(4) would only allow for only limited political involvement. 501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501c4#501.28c.29.284.29)

That opens it up for abuse and creates some vagueness, but I'm not seeing evidence that Tea Party organizations engage in anything but partisan political advocacy and use a very questionable definition of "Social Welfare"

Edit:
Regarding 501c3, I don't know how many but for example, Tea Party United claims to be "A 501c-3 Educational Charity":
http://ourlincolnteaparty.com/Donations.php

[DonCoquixote]

104. these statyus are given away like candy

and they are not honest about how they are, or what they do

http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2013/05/surprise-surprise-one-of-the-tea-party-groups-targeted-by-the-irs-just-happens-to-be-an-anti-voter-fraud-organization-2503186.html

So this group that advocates voter suppression gets the same tax free status as mother marys soup kitchen.

[hrmjustin]

76. I disagree! The IRS should not go after people with a certain view.

[marshall]

84. Innocent people never get in trouble

If people just behave themselves, they shouldn't worry about audits or spotlights.

[Abq_Sarah]

86. Or having their emails read or phone calls monitored....

Right?

[Douglas Carpenter]

88. PLEASE!! You are disgracing the Progressive cause, The Democratic Party and this forum

and our President who thank God spoke up against this evil. This boneheaded thinking that proclaims that as long as we are the ones' doing it - we can try to intimidate our opponents is absolutely counter to the values of all democratic and progressive minded values. If you approve of trying to intimidate them because you disagree with them - there is absolutely no reason to believe that you would not approve of trying to intimidate me if I happen to disagree with you.

I hope everyone who believes in Freedom of Speech denounces the grave evil being advocated in this dangerous and idiotic post.

[iamthebandfanman]

89. +1

kinda shocked by DUers thinking that singling out groups is okay..
everyone should be treated equally in when going through scrutiny...
especially by a NON POLITICAL entity as the IRS...

yeah, we all hate the tea party...
and that's fine and dandy..

I know this gets used a lot.. but..
slippery slope!

sad people will see this on the front page in the greatest section because of the amount of likes :p

im sure some conservative somewhere is pointing to it and using it as an example of how evil we are (id say atleast in freeperland lol)

[cali]

92. thank you Douglas.

unfortunately, a substantial number of DUers agree with the OP.

It is disgraceful to see.

[burnodo]

96. Did the Democratic party target the Tea Party?

Like it's in control of the IRS? That seems to be the implication of your post.

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. I don't know of any evidence that is the case. The President as I mentioned who is the expo facto

Party leader has condemned it. .

[Ptah]

97. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Tue May 14, 2013, 05:42 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I have no problem with the IRS going after those openly advocating tax evation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022836343

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This post is a TOS violation and a grave embarrassment to DU. To associate liberals, progressives and Democrats with illegal actions and abuses of power condemned clearly and unambiguously by our President makes one wonder if the poster is not intentionally trying to make progressives and Democrats look authoritarian and anti-democratic and hostile to basic American values. The very suggestion that progressives and Democrats support singling out anyone for the political beliefs is so hostile to our values and liberals and progressives values - I wonder about the agenda of this poster. Think about how right now people of all persuasion might come across this OP and think that Democrats and Progressives are in fact authoritarians who do not share values which accept the right of everyone to express their opinions without an worry of persecution, discrimination or even subtle intimidation. The assumption of a neutral state apparatus is fundamental. Please, please send a message loud a clear that the members of DU will not accept authoritarianism or endorse political intimidation no matter who does it and who it is directed against. For the respectability of the progressive cause, the Democratic Party and this forum - please hide this post and let us send the message that was once invoked in the immortal words of the great French Philosopher Voltaire, "I disagree with every word you say, but I would die for the right of you to say it," Please let everyone know that is the position of liberals, progressives and Democrats and the position of DU,

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue May 14, 2013, 05:53 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Devilgrrl doesn't understand what the IRS did and how it violates their own rules.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: You may be reading a wee bit too much into that statement.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The alerter needs to read the post alerted on.
Tax evasion is a crime.
Those that advocate crime should be investigated.
The alerter wasted a rant.
Leave it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Duppers]

98. Yes. And Lawrence O'Donnell got it right

Video:
http://www.the-richmonder.com/2013/05/only-lawrence-odonnell-gets-irs-scandal.html

Only Lawrence O'Donnell got the coverage of this "scandal" right: the scandal is that any of these conservative political groups got tax-exempt status.



I don't understand those critical people on this thread. Apparently, they've not read enough about this issue.

[Progressive dog]

106. Thanks, I usually watch Lawrence but

missed that.
He explained why t-party groups are not entitled to charitable tax status under the law, period. Then he shot down the targeting part of the Republican argument.

[brooklynite]

101. This kind of idiocy will make it impossible for the IRS to go after Churches that endorse candidates

...a known violation of their 5021(c)(3) status. Now any attempt will be lumped together as "more attacks on conservative groups"

[Douglas Carpenter]

105. this is a huge setback for any attempts to restrain dirty money in politics. For a long time to come

it will be almost impossible to question any funding issues when it comes to right-wing groups and their tax status. The IRS has just handed them one big "get out of jail free" card. And they are going to have that advantage for a long time to come.

[sinkingfeeling]

107. I thought the GOP was all for profiling.

[RoccoR5955]

108. It's about time they went after conservative groups.

They have been going after liberal groups for more than 40 years that I know about!

So the conservatives have no problem when they go after Greenpeace, or War Resistors League, but it deems investigation when they go after the Tea Party. I call BS!