T1B

Moving Sale wrote:Those right wing tea party organizations should have never been given 501c4 status.

That is absolutely correct. And who was responsible for granting those organizations 501c4 status?

Congress.

No wonder Lerner told those fucks to fuck the fuck off.

Moving Sale wrote:
Now why don't you comment on how you knew nothing about the actual law before I told you Mr. Low information voter.

Actually, YOU know nothing about the actual law or else are simply lying.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Prof ... anizations

bwaaaa... @ Screwed.


Why didn't she testify and say that?

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Those right wing tea party organizations should have never been given 501c4 status.

That is absolutely correct. And who was responsible for granting those organizations 501c4 status?

Congress.

The IRS is responsible for approving applications for 501 c4 status, you fucking idiot. Conservative applications were stalled while progtard apps went sailing through without any trouble.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:
Now why don't you comment on how you knew nothing about the actual law before I told you Mr. Low information voter.

Actually, YOU know nothing about the actual law or else are simply lying.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Prof ... anizations

That is the irs regs not the law, which I already cited, you stupid asshat the law clearly states they have to be exclusively in the social welfare arena. The irs changing it to primarily is the whole scandal you stupid racist fuck.

Moving Sale wrote:That is the irs regs not the law, which I already cited, you stupid asshat the law clearly states they have to be exclusively in the social welfare arena. The irs changing it to primarily is the whole scandal you stupid racist fuck.

WRONG

mvscal wrote: The IRS is responsible for approving applications for 501 c4 status, you fucking idiot. Conservative applications were stalled while progtard apps went sailing through without any trouble.

Congress gives the IRS the authority, moron. Didn't realize I had to spell it out for you. Thought you were past preschool Washington lessons.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

mvscal wrote: The IRS is responsible for approving applications for 501 c4 status, you fucking idiot. Conservative applications were stalled while progtard apps went sailing through without any trouble.

Congress gives the IRS the authority, moron.

So? Did Congress also give the IRS the authority to unevenly apply the law in order to obtain a partisan advantage?

Do you have any evidence of that?

Screw_Michigan wrote:Do you have any evidence of that?

Yes, there is a great deal of evidence of that. Hence the hearings. Hence Lerner taking the 5th to avoid incriminating herself.

OK, so YOU don't have any evidence of that. You're just repeating allegations. Got it.

Screw_Michigan wrote:OK, so YOU don't have any evidence of that. You're just repeating allegations. Got it.

Uhm, I don't think the 5th Amendment means what you think it means.

It's the right to abstain from self-incrimination during a legal proceeding. It doesn't cover which question you're allowed to cherry-pick to answer. Ergo, if it isn't self-incriminating, you can't invoke it. She invoked it.

Res ipsa loquitur.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:That is the irs regs not the law, which I already cited, you stupid asshat the law clearly states they have to be exclusively in the social welfare arena. The irs changing it to primarily is the whole scandal you stupid racist fuck.

WRONG

Wtf are you talking about? I already cited the law. It's clear. What you cited are the regs which do not override the law.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:That is the irs regs not the law, which I already cited, you stupid asshat the law clearly states they have to be exclusively in the social welfare arena. The irs changing it to primarily is the whole scandal you stupid racist fuck.

WRONG

Wtf are you talking about? I already cited the law. It's clear. What you cited are the regs which do not override the law.

De facto, yes, regs override the law because the regs are what the agency is enforcing. The law is irrelevant to nature of this scandal.

The regs permit C4 orgs to engage in political activity...period. Whether or not they should have done so is a separate issue. Now when those regs are enforced in a selective manner in order to obtain partisan advantage in an election, you have a scandal and a very serious one at that.

Nixon drew an article of impeachment for a lot less.

Dinsdale wrote:It doesn't cover which question you're allowed to cherry-pick to answer.

Uhhh...actually it does.


Man, I hate having to explain to Americans their own constitutional rights...

:doh:

mvscal wrote:...a selective manner...

You argument is based on subjective and highly speculative information.

When did you stop beating you're wife?

mvscal wrote: De facto, yes, regs override the law because the regs are what the agency is enforcing. The law is irrelevant to nature of this scandal.

The regs permit C4 orgs to engage in political activity...period. Whether or not they should have done so is a separate issue.

An issue which you are siding with lawlessness. How Nixonian of you.

Now when those regs are enforced in a selective manner in order to obtain partisan advantage in an election, you have a scandal and a very serious one at that.

Except that's not what happened.

Moving Sale wrote:

Now when those regs are enforced in a selective manner in order to obtain partisan advantage in an election, you have a scandal and a very serious one at that.

Except that's not what happened.

That is exactly what happened. Hence the partisan hack, Lerner, taking the 5th.

You have no idea why she didn't speak you stupid racist hack.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

mvscal wrote:...a selective manner...

You argument is based on subjective and highly speculative information.

When did you stop beating you're wife?

There is nothing subjective or speculative about this.

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday apologized for targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, confirming long-standing accusations by some conservatives that their applications for tax-exempt status were being improperly delayed and scrutinized.

Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives. (I laughed)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

Nor is there anything subjective or speculative about a senior official at the heart of the scandal pleading the 5th.

They didn't deserve 501c4 and they got it illegally and you are still bitching that they got it too slow. You are an idiot.

The issue is the uneven application of the regulations in order to create a partisan advantage in advance of an election.

Your opinion on the legality of the regulation is irrelevant and entirely beside the point.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:It doesn't cover which question you're allowed to cherry-pick to answer.

Uhhh...actually it does.

When did you make that up?

I'll type slowly this time...

The 5th Amendment ONLY covers self-incrimination. It doesn't defend the right to pick and choose which questions to answer. One of the few exceptions is if a person is a defendant in a criminal case, they can opt to not testify at all. A witness in a criminal proceeding has no such right.

While Congressional proceedings have a little more leeway as far as what's considered self-incrimination, there is no "right" to cherry-pick.

Dumbass.

mvscal wrote:The issue is the uneven application of the regulations in order to create a partisan advantage in advance of an election.

By whom?

Your opinion on the legality of the regulation is irrelevant and entirely beside the point.

It's not my opinion. I cited the code.

Dins,
You might want to retake your community college crim procedure night class over. A witness can absolutely take the fifth in someone else's trial.

Moving Sale wrote:

Your opinion on the legality of the regulation is irrelevant and entirely beside the point.

It's not my opinion. I cited the code.

So the President, by permitting the IRS to allow C4 orgs to participate in political activity, has broken yet another law?

Is that what you're saying?

As has every POTUS back to and including IKE. It's disgusting.

Moving Sale wrote:As has every POTUS back to and including IKE. It's disgusting.

Then perhaps it's time to make an example of somebody to discourage such disgusting behavior in the future, yes?

How convenient for you that is would be a black democrat who first gets the ax.

He wouldn't be the first. Nixon was going to be impeached for abusing the IRS among other things.

But not for not enforcing the exclusivity clause of the 501c4 law.

So? They both abused that agency for partisan political purposes.

I don't think Obama abused the irs in this case. Did he appoint someone who hired some one who did? I don't know. It appears to me as though they used search terms like tea party and medical marijuana 9-12 project and occupy to narrow down who should be further scrutinized. Not sure if that was smart but it was unnecessary as NONE of them seem to fit into the exclusively for social welfare clause of 501c4.

Moving Sale wrote:Dins,
You might want to retake your community college crim procedure night class over. A witness can absolutely take the fifth in someone else's trial.

Of course they can. I didn't word that particularly well.

But not if it isn't self-incriminating. That was the point I was attempting to make.

You mean I was right and you were wrong? Fair enough.

And let's remember that Issa didn't use the proper procedure when attempting to get her to answer so by congress' rule she wasn't even in contempt, even though the house voted that she was.

Moving Sale wrote:I don't think Obama abused the irs in this case. Did he appoint someone who hired some one who did? I don't know.

Of course you don't. She plead the 5th which, in and of itself, is compelling evidence that there were some..."shenanigans" which were, to the mind of her legal counsel, outside the scope of the law.

Moving Sale wrote:You mean I was right and you were wrong? Fair enough.

Sure. One of my greatest concerns about the fucked up state of our Fed...errr national government is that agencies such as the IRS, EPA and BLM arrogate to themselves authority which is not granted to them by Congressional statute.

That, our wildly abusive paramilitary police power and untrammeled intelligence gathering constitute an existential crisis for our form of government and very way of life. This has absolutely nothing to do with the race of the shithead currently fouling the office.

Wakey, wakey

mvsidiot is worried that the police will learn about the dungeon that his wife had built into their home so that she can properly "massage" him.

Like they really care about shit like that.

mvscal wrote:
Of course you don't. She plead the 5th which, in and of itself, is compelling evidence that there were some..."shenanigans" which were, to the mind of her legal counsel, outside the scope of the law.

Wrong. It is evidence of nothing.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:
Of course you don't. She plead the 5th which, in and of itself, is compelling evidence that there were some..."shenanigans" which were, to the mind of her legal counsel, outside the scope of the law.

Wrong. It is evidence of nothing.

Who do you think is dumb enough to buy that line of bullshit?

Diego? JSC?