OT: American Politics

[mbow30]

hmm. interesting. very interesting. a letter last march from prominent democrat senators to the IRS urging them to crawl up the asses of political groups. that "rogue IRS employees in cincy" thing is looking stupider and stupider...

http://www.schumer.senate.gov/Newsro....cfm?id=336270

of course they were doing that in the first presidnetial election since the decision in citizens united.

[theREALkoreaboy]

Korea, why do you give a crap if the state goes after someone, as you stated re losing your rights to protect against terrorism, if you have nothing to hide,,,,,

if a law enforcement agency thinks that a suspect is behaving in such a manner as to suggest they might be engaged in terror activities threatening many americans, i have no problems granting them powers to keep us safe from those kinds of people. using an agency of the gov't to specifically target groups of americans for extra gov't scrutiny because they happen to be of a different political party than you are is a whole different animal. and if you don't see the reason why, you're dumb.

[theREALkoreaboy]

of course they were doing that in the first presidnetial election since the decision in citizens united.

do you think moveon.org come under extra scrutiny?

[mbow30]

they all did and superpacs on both sides were denied status.

simple questeion-- do you know thes lightest hing about charity designation?

[theREALkoreaboy]

BS. total BS. the story thats emerging is that groups with right wing key words in the titles were singled out for extra scrutiny.

[TheCountofMonteCristo]

if a law enforcement agency thinks that a suspect is behaving in such a manner as to suggest they might be engaged in terror activities threatening many americans, i have no problems granting them powers to keep us safe from those kinds of people. using an agency of the gov't to specifically target groups of americans for extra gov't scrutiny because they happen to be of a different political party than you are is a whole different animal. and if you don't see the reason why, you're dumb.

so govt taking away your rights is fine with you if you agree with the reasoning behind it, gotcha

[mbow30]

BS. total BS. the story thats emerging is that groups with right wing key words in the titles were singled out for extra scrutiny.

you're such a windbag.

following the decision in citizens united social advocacy organizations, which were recognized as social welfare org's and granted special status under s 501(c)(4) of the IRC, became more prominent political vehicles ... colloquially these are what are called 'super pacs'...

501(c)(4) corps are distinguished from 501(c)(3) corps -- what we normally think of as charities -- based on being disallowed (generally) from issuing tax receipts. but they enjoy tax exempt status.

the irs has always, ALWAYS scrutinized charitable status because of the tax benefits it confers. they obviously placed closer scrutiny on (4)'s following the decision in citizens united, which basically said that the government cannot restrain corproate political donations or the behaviour of corporate donors; the effect was increased use of these vehicles for political ends (since the 'social welfare' distinction is kind of blurry).

closer scrutiny was placed on status for all similar organizations. the problem was a directive... to this point, evidence suggests only in a limited number of irs offices... to focus specifically on organizations taht were identifiably conservative/tea party supporters, based on their names.

it is unclear if these organizations were disproportionately rejected. what we do know is that even left wing organizations have been denied status.

that isn't bs. that's cold hard fact.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet...ked_democrats/

[theREALkoreaboy]

you know that article you cited proves MY point, don't you? even the title acknowledges that right wing groups came under unfair scrutiny.

[mbow30]

you are having an argument with yourself here.

you also clearly lack an undersatnding of the matters before you.

of course, i said that left wing groups were also scrutinized, to which you said 'bs'.

but it's not bs.

/end of discussion on this matter, dumdum

[theREALkoreaboy]

No I didn't. I said the story is that right wing groups have clearly come under much MORE scrutiny under this administration. Those are the facts. You can try to end the discussion all you want. This scandal won't go away.

[mbow30]

No I didn't. I said the story is that right wing groups have clearly come under much MORE scrutiny under this administration. Those are the facts. You can try to end the discussion all you want. This scandal won't go away.

mbow:

they all did and superpacs on both sides were denied status.

simple questeion-- do you know thes lightest hing about charity designation?


stupid*******:

BS. total BS. the story thats emerging is that groups with right wing key words in the titles were singled out for extra scrutiny.



and don't spew about 'facts' that you (a) don't know on a topic that you (b) don't understand

[lecoqsportif]

Forbes Magazine... ObamaKenyanSocialistCare is an unmitigated disaster!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...premium-rates/

Or maybe not.

Heh.

[zeke]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...for-obamacare/

Obamacare got some very good news on Thursday.
In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that a medium-level “silver” plan — which covers 70 percent of a beneficiary’s expected health costs — on the California health exchange would cost $5,200 annually. More recently, a report from the consulting firm Milliman predicted it would carry a $450 monthly premium. Yesterday, we got the real numbers. And they’re lower than anyone thought......