the truth
i realize it is usually foreign to your side
Fox didn't compile any list they just took the information and numbers from the Washington post analysis and created a chart. if you have a problem with the numbers then direct it at the Washington post not FoxYou mean the list that lumps religious groups like the Progressive Baptist Church, medical groups like the "Progressive Care Center", and political 527's and compares them to politically activist 501(c)(4)'s? You mean the list Fox News completely misrepresented? The one that also mentions 47 groups with patriot or constitution that were approved during the time that 3 'conservative' were approved?
How many of those Tea Party organizations exclusively or primarily deal with "social welfare?"the information and numbers came from a Washington post analysis of IRS data they did not give a list
View attachment 67148148
"Groups with the word “progressive” in their names suffered no similar slowdown. The number of approvals for those groups increased each year, from 17 in 2009 to 30 in 2012, the data show."
Groups that sought tax-exempt status say IRS dealings were a nightmare - Washington Post
it is very safe to assume groups with "progressive" in thier name are liberal
If they was any violation why were they not denied? the wasn't they was just put in limbo for over 27 months, and most are still waitingHow many of those Tea Party organizations exclusively or primarily deal with "social welfare?"
So it's the Washington Posts fault for posting data that Fox News took out of context? Lets lets not forget that you took Fox News' dishonest report and mischaracterized it even further, changing "only 3 groups with Tea Party in their names" to "only 3 conservative groups.Fox didn't compile any list they just took the information and numbers from the Washington post analysis and created a chart. if you have a problem with the numbers then direct it at the Washington post not Fox
I think it depends upon whether they are seeking a 501c3 or 501c4 nonprofit status. Here is a link from your OP article, maybe it will help:If they was any violation why were they not denied? the wasn't they was just put in limbo for over 27 months, and most are still waiting
that's your list of 65 progressive organizations?Did you read the thread? no you didnt becuase if you did you would have seen the post with the list i was refering. to here it is
If you would inform your self and know a little what the hell your talking about you would look less like a fool
How many of those Tea Party organizations exclusively or primarily deal with "social welfare?"
liberalism is a mental disorder you just proved it. I never said i had a list of 65 progressive groupsthat's your list of 65 progressive organizations?
now, still waiting for the criteria used to identify them as progressive
liberalism is a mental disorder you just proved it. I never said i had a list of 65 progressive groups
if you want the list give Washington Post a call. they didn't give a list they just wrote in there IRS analysis that 65 progressive groups were approved
I know you need to try to be civil on forum post but dam people like you make it impossible
All of them??? It was reported that none were declined status...and the IRS couldn't be wrong...:lamo
Here is a link I found in the OP article:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/TIGTA_Audit_Report1.pdf
from your linkFor the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied.
Good for you! and your point is? Perhaps this:
from your link
Again, considering none were denied, all were exclusively or primarily deal with "social welfare" else they would have been denied???
I have no idea. I don't blame you for being pissed, but I think if you are blaming the Obama administration for this, in my opinion, you're pissing into the wind.
The Washington Post did not say that 65 progressive groups were approved.liberalism is a mental disorder you just proved it. I never said i had a list of 65 progressive groups
if you want the list give Washington Post a call. they didn't give a list they just wrote in there IRS analysis that 65 progressive groups were approved
I know you need to try to be civil on forum post but dam people like you make it impossible
This post is a great example of what happens when blind partisanship meets intellectual dishonesty.wrong
it is posts such as yours that are the shameless displays of partisanship in this matter
when testifying before congress the IG was asked if he saw any indication that the (objectionable) screening methods used by the IRS employees
had any indication of being politically biased
his response
"NO"
he, the IG, observed no partisanship
but you and those of your political stripe have certainly made this a partisan political matter
where it did not actually exist
I can see how you would think that, but it isn't exactly the case. The IRS has admitted to and apologized for using "tea party", "patriots", and "912" as part of the criteria to determine excess political activity.This post is a great example of what happens when blind partisanship meets intellectual dishonesty.
*NEWSFLASH*
The IRS THEMSELVES have already admitted there was a bias. It isn't like this is some wild allegation by conservatives. It came directly from the IRS. Are you really going to sit here and pretend that this fact is somehow irrelevant?
This post is a great example of what happens when blind partisanship meets intellectual dishonesty.
*NEWSFLASH*
The IRS THEMSELVES have already admitted there was a bias. It isn't like this is some wild allegation by conservatives. It came directly from the IRS. Are you really going to sit here and pretend that this fact is somehow irrelevant?
I can see how you would think that, but it isn't exactly the case. The IRS has admitted to and apologized for using "tea party", "patriots", and "912" as part of the criteria to determine excess political activity.
This is certainly politically insensitive, and it is certainly unacceptable for an organization like the IRS to engage in anything that looks remotely like partisanship. However it is not bias.
It's not biased if most of your investigations target conservatives if conservatives are committing most of the abuse. Just like it wasn't abusive for the IRS to examine liberal groups which exploded under Bush.
We can't like abuses when they benefit us, and call it tyrannical when they don't.
A Washington Free Beacon investigation has identified at least five pro-Israel organizations that have been audited by the IRS in the wake of a coordinated campaign by White House-allied activist groups in 2009 and 2010.
These organizations, some of which are too afraid of government reprisals to speak publicly, say in interviews with the Free Beacon that they now believe the IRS actions may have been coordinated by the Obama administration.
How is it partisan to want an investigation after it has been exposed that there was wrongdoing by a government agency? EVERYONE should want a complete and thorough investigation. The IRS wields enormous power and they are not subject to the same due process laws that govern the legal system. If there is even the slightest hint that they have abused or are abusing that power then they need to be investigated. I seriously doubt that you would be of the same opinion about this if it involved liberal groups during the Bush administration.the acting commissioner, miller, never made such an acknowledgement
when testifying, he made a point to note that no groups were "targeted"
while he did not endorse the methodology used to sort those cases approvable by merit (application information only) versus those requiring deeper analysis, he noted, as did the IG, that there was NO political partisanship evident by those actions
again, the partisanship here is all yours, and that of your ilk
How is it partisan to want an investigation after it has been exposed that there was wrongdoing by a government agency? EVERYONE should want a complete and thorough investigation. The IRS wields enormous power and they are not subject to the same due process laws that govern the legal system. If there is even the slightest hint that they have abused or are abusing that power then they need to be investigated. I seriously doubt that you would be of the same opinion about this if it involved liberal groups during the Bush administration.
For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone would want to prevent this. It would be along the same lines as arguing against auditing the federal reserve.:roll:
it is partisan when you - and those like you - insist that it was only 'conservative' organizations whose applications were being held up
that belief is not true
but that is why your arguments are found to be partisan ones
Report: One-Third of Tax-Exempt Groups Scrutinized by IRS Were Not Conservative - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
This info shouldn't come as a huge surprise, since it only takes a few hours sorting through publically available data. It's been apparent that there was no real political bias. However reality has not really been much of a deterrent.
Report: One-Third of Tax-Exempt Groups Scrutinized by IRS Were Not Conservative - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
This info shouldn't come as a huge surprise, since it only takes a few hours sorting through publically available data. It's been apparent that there was no real political bias. However reality has not really been much of a deterrent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?