Today's Press Conference - Curious Parsing (Lies) by Obama

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Radio Refugee, May 16, 2013.

  1. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    One need only examine the way people think in the Religious Forums to realize that ANY answer is all that is required to ward off an accusation like these ones.

    It does NOT matter if the response is ridiculous, unbelievable, irrational, or, as in this case, indirect and unrelated to the accusation directly.

    All that is needed is the straight face response which is sufficient for the followers, supporters, and people on his side of the controversy.

    Any action against Obama must come from the very hand picked guy who recuses himself on everything he has been charged with, the Attorney General.
    Remember, Attorney Generals are the only people who can decide that a crime may have been committed.

    If the Republicans try to Impeach this guy, they will rouse the rabble of the 30 million Black people, (80% on Welfare/Medicaid/Food Stamps), who presently hold all our cities hostage to their crime/danger, and especially the 10 biggest and most important ones.
    If these people in Washington want to pull what Hitler did in 1933, insisting, also as did he, that political gridlock has frozen government and brought progress to a stand still, this is the one thing the republicans can do to light that fuse.

    Black people, not Brown Shirts, will rampage the cities everywhere, joined by the anti-business/Wall Street radicals already organized, coupled with the forces of still angry demanding Public Unions, and unrestrained by a Military, commanded by Obama, himself.

    Such an uprising will then be a crisis which does require Emergency Powers.

    In the end, after martial law are utilized, Obama will have Nationalized Big Oil which opens the coffers to solve his money problems, while he sees his whole unified Entitlements army granted a Chicken every Sunday, Hitler-like expression of great prosperity, as he dismantles every enemy on hos hit list, one by one, aiming first at Fox News.



    The Peter Principle:
    "If something bad COULD happen, then it will happen, and the worst possible moment."


    Rx:
    Gather the facts, complain, spend time preparing for when Obama leaves office, and then uses his Community Organizing Skills to bring about the same take over he would be able to accomplish now were the republicans to throw down and fight him today.
     
  2. Eighty Deuce

    Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    26,846
    Likes Received:
    543
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shiva. The issue here is not about any need for increased scrutiny of 501C's. Scrutinize them more, or do it less, just do it objectively. As the laws are written.

    This is about targeting based upon political identity, in this case, those applicants who were likely of a political persuasion contrary to the sitting President.

    As to any "fix " before the POTUS found out (claiming he just found out last week), do you have some inside info on that ? Can you refute the following:

    1) This abusive policy went on for almost two years ?

    2) It extended well beyond the regional Cincinnati office, and was known by the highest echelons of the IRS for at least 18 months ?

    3) That despite prior hearings and requests by Congressional GOP, where such abuse was denied, the IRS never came forward with the correct information once it had it ?

    4) That what the President calls "outrageous and unacceptable" was clearly not so for a period of almost two years ? As it continued unabated ? That the issue is therefore how large the circle of those in the loop of acceptance had grown before Obama finally said it was "unacceptable" ?

    5) Finally, there has not yet been any "Investigation" ? Only an audit indicative of wrongdoing ? That we do not yet know who directed such or why ? Who then found out, when did they find out, and what did they do ?

    Again, this is not about added scrutiny of 501C's, as you erroneously claim Its about targeting political opponents using the IRS.
     
  3. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Were any organizations that qualified for 501(c) tax exempt status ever denied that status by the IRS?

    That is the only real question that needs to be answered.

    As noted I found a few of the questions asked to be irrelevant to the IRS making a determination but that doesn't have anything to do with the White House unless someone shows me that those questions originated from the White House. Those responsible for those questions need to be held accountable but I don't engage in witch hunts trying to blame someone for something they had nothing to do with.

    I've personally dealt with the IRS and it has huge power but in my personal dealing I was always able to work with the IRS to resolve any questions they had about my taxes. My 2009 tax return was audited and, in the end, the IRS owed me over $8,000 and it only took four weeks for them to pay me. I hated the audit and didn't like being forced to deal with it but I happened to come out on top and the IRS didn't complain or deny me the additional refund. The fact that the IRS exerts a lot of power doesn't imply that the IRS is not ultimately fair in its determinations.

    Were any "conservative" organizations that qualified for 501(c) status remains the key question. Show me where that happened and I'll join with those condemning the IRS. I will not condemn the White House for something it had nothing to do with.
     
  4. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree absolutely with this.

    It would also be my opinion, as I've noted before, if an application appears to be from a "political action" group then it probably warrants additional scrutiny. I provided the example of a "liberal" group that, based upon its name, would trigger further investigation by me if it was called "Americans for Gun Control" because gun control groups are typically political action groups and not a 501(c) entity. The name "Tea Party" would also trigger further investigation by me because the Tea Party has been overwhelmingly related to political action which would not be a 501(c) entity.

    I believe naming a 501(c) entity with a name typically associated with "political activities" would warrant addtional scrutiny by the IRS and that should be applied universally without bias or prejudice by the IRS. Is there any actual evidence that the IRS, for example, ignored a "liberal" organization like a "gun control" organization that applied for 501(c) tax exempt status? I'm not aware of that actually happening.

    I didn't know that the IRS had "political opponents" per se and the IRS is comprised of conservatives and liberals. We know that the "White House" didn't issue any directives to the IRS about additional scrutiny for 501(c) applicants so there wasn't anything "political" coming from the White House.

    Now I do know that some "tea party" activists want to abolish the income tax which would end the need for the IRS but we also know that these people are probably living in a bubble and they don't really represent a political opponent to the IRS. They're opposed to income taxes and not the IRS per se. Of course if their primary focused is on eliminating income taxes then they wouldn't qualify as a 501(c) organization as they are a political action group.

    I will also acknowledge that there are some real wacko's possibly carrying "tea party" banners that are delusional and that illegally avoid paying taxes. People like Westley Snipes fall in with these wacko's and the IRS has to be on the lookout for them as well.

    Bottom line I'm not even sure that only "conservative" groups were subjected to additional scrutiny. There might have been far more "conservative" groups investigated possibly because the "tea party" is now trying to get tax breaks by becoming 501(c) entities than liberal groups and unquestionably if they included "tea party" in their name it would trigger an investigation if I was the IRS agent. That isn't being discriminatory because it is based upon a rational determination by the IRS agent. I mean, for example, if an IRS office said "beware of Tea Party groups applying for 501(c) tax exempt status because they very well might be a PAC and not a 501(c) entity" that is a logical matter for the IRS to investigate. It isn't "targeting" based upon "conservative" or "liberal" but instead is addressing a simple fact that the "Tea Party" has overwhelmingly been a political action group. I could see the same directive being issued for any applicant with "gun control" in their name as that is overwhelmingly indicative of a political action group.

    Maybe the "Tea Party" actually brought this additional scrutiny upon itself. Has anyone considered that?
     
  5. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, if it were only true. Whether 501(c) tax exempt status was eventually granted or not you seem to be saying the "no harm, no foul" standard works for the IRS. Not so!

    The IRS caused conservatives applicants to suffer undue costs, undue delays, undue intrusive standards to meet (tell us who you represent, promise us you will not picket Planned Parenthood, etc.) and, most importantly, by selectively withholding approval for 501(c) status to overwhelmingly right leaning organizations the IRS was handicapping the conservative movement and it's ability to challenge the power of Barack Obama and when sensitive tax information was leaked to Romney foes, and used to great effect, then the IRS crosses a line that changes our nation from a democracy to a dictatorship!
    You couldn't be more wrong when you assert that merely denying 501(c) status is the only thing that matters.
     
  6. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anyone attempting to mitigate this IRS Stalinism is scum to the core.

    It's just that simple. "The IRS was a little out of line but ...."

    But what, scumbag? But freeeekin what? You're attempting to mitigate crime for political ends and you are morally bankrupt, unfit to share my country.
     
  7. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't know anything for sure.

    What a joke.
     
  8. Eighty Deuce

    Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    26,846
    Likes Received:
    543
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shortened for brevity's sake, but using that as a foundation ........

    Nor did I, nor did I claim such. The IRS was the tool used to antagonize one side of the political aisle. The only questions are at whose direction, then who else knew, who else then approved and/or did nothing when they had either specific or general supervisory obligations.

    We surely do not know how high up this went. You are welcome to provide any evidence that supports your claim of absolving the WH.

    Again, that is not what happened here. Wesley Snipes in not on the list of targeted 501C's, much less any list indicative of political targeting, to my knowledge.

    The IRS audit indicates that Conservative groups were targeted far more than any other groups, and that the evidence indicates political targeting. It is why we are having an investigation now, and it will be far reaching in its probing. Is this not proper ?
     
  9. Eighty Deuce

    Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    26,846
    Likes Received:
    543
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where do you get that from ? If the IRS improperly requested lists of all donors, is that not intimidation ? If the IRS requested lists of where members worshipped ? Of any students mentored ? Of hundreds of questions revealing names and entities and thoughts, is that not hugely intimidating ? What other valid purpose is served ?

    Glad that it worked out for you, but that is not the discussion here.
    The investigation will find out. Please present any evidence absolving the WH. As they most recently lied to us blatantly abut Benghazi, a few of us are loathe to give them a fee-pass as you have.
     
  10. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once agian I don't see how additional scrutiny would actually cause financial harm. The additional questions that were ligitimate (and as I've noted some appear not to be) in determining whether an organization qualified as a 501(c) entity did not prohibit them from acquiring funding and any donations made prior to the granting of 501(c) status would still be deductable for the contributor once that status was granted. Nothing prevented to funding of the organization itself prior to granting of 501(c) status.

    Of note "challenging the power of the President" (that actually has nothing to do with IRS operations) is political in nature and does not inherently reflect 501(c) qualification. It's not prohibited for a 501(c) organization to address political issues but it cannot be the primary goal of the organization. A "conservative" anti-abortion organization could demonstrate in front of Planned Parenthood for example but there are limitations on what it can present as far as being a 501(c) organization (e.g. it could provide educational materials but couldn't do so as a political protest organization from what I understand).

    Once agian the key, and what I believe we all support, is that a PAC, regardless of whether its conservative or liberal, should not be allowed to operate as a 501(c) entity as that violates the tax codes and election campaign laws.

    The belief that President Obama is attempting to turn the United States into a dictatorship from a "Constitutional Republic" (we're not a democracy nor is the Bible the Supreme Law of the Land) is pure right-wing delusional conspiracy theory. It's as absurd as the right-wing belief that our government will confiscate our guns. Not a single "gun" has been confiscated, including fully automatic weapons, unless the person owning them was involved in a criminal act in the history of the United States and it ain't gonna happen. Delusional right-wing thinking really needs to be checked at the door.
     
  11. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe that in determining whether an organization qualifies as a 501(c) entity it might be relevant to know who the contributors are. If the determination is made that the organization is a 501(c) entity then that information must be kept private by the IRS as I understand the law. If, on the other hand, its determined that the organization is actually a PAC I believe that information must be public.

    Once agian I will go back to the fact that the Tea Party movement was established as a political action movement and actually transitioning to a 501(c) entity is somewhat out of character and is highly questionable IMHO. It would be identical to a "gun control" organization that is also formed for political purposes becoming a 501(c) entity. I don't see any difference between the two because becoming a non profit 501(c) entity seems out of character and should be questioned.

    Proof of innocence? I always thought that the burden was on proving guilt.

    From what I've read there is documentation that members of Congress did submit a request to the IRS to take measures to prevent PAC's from illegally masquerading as 501(c) entities but that addressed any PAC without any consideration as to the political position or issues of the PAC. What the IRS did after receiving that request is completely unrelated to the request which was completely non-partisan in nature.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that President Obama or the White House issued any requests or directives to the IRS related to 501(c) applications that I'm aware of. If that evidence exists then I'd like to see what the requests or directives actually stated.

    BTW I wouldn't use Benghazi as an example if I was a conservative with the recent revalation that Republican Staffers altered the emails related to the "Talking Points" for nefarious political purposes before presenting them as "transcripts" to a reporter at ABC. The scandal today is that Republican Staffers were nefarious in their alterations of the emails between the White House, State Department, and CIA. It was a fabricated "scandal" created by Republicans for nefarious political reasons and that is the actual scandal today.
     
  12. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't think that audits and investigations (all sparked by your political leanings) don't cause considerable expense and legal fees?
    That's puts you in a distinct minority.

    "Challenging the power of the president" is what has brought the wrath of the IRS down on the heads of Tea Party people. You probably know how the president's half brother had his sham charity approved in record time (30 days) and gained unprecedented retroactive statues dating back several years while right wing applicants have been told to sit and wait and then forced to indulge all sorts of invasive information designed to "rat out" others the IRS might then turn and go after.
    The lack of even handedness is amazing.

    Of course.

    Let me make a careful distinction here: I do not think the president is attempting to form a dictatorship here in the U.S.
    But I do think he is engaging in behavior and setting precedents, that, if left unchecked or unchallenged, could lead to a dictatorship down the road and I don't think that's debatable.
     
  13. Eighty Deuce

    Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    26,846
    Likes Received:
    543
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its real simple, if one wants to see the truth. Equal Protection. Scrutinize all the same. The IRS did not.

    You stated that the WH had no involvement. That is pure BS, in that you can't know that at this point. You claimed it was just a GOP witch hunt Same BS. The Legislative has Constitutional oversight obligation and power, does it not ?

    Seeing as the IRS has so far only conducted an audit, maybe we should allow a full investigation to go forward before we:

    a) Say Obama is guilty of malfeasance, etc.
    b) Say the GOP is just pursuing a folly <<<<<<<<<<< hint

    Lose lose for you. The GOP altered no emails. The GOP was forbidden copies of the original emails. Forbidden to make copies. They were only allowed to read them, under supervision, and to then take written notes. Of "unclassified" emails. That is not "altering". Further, let the WH release all. They have withheld the first 48 + hours still, have they not ?

    Surely the most "transparent and honest administration in history" has nothing to fear ?
     

Share This Page