Why haven't progressive groups complained about issues applying for 501c(4) status?
I guessing it's because liberals don't understand taxes.
I guessing it's because liberals don't understand taxes.
I am guessing is is because they just don't whine as much.
I'm not sure how any reasonably person could read the tax code and come to the conclusion that a political group belongs as a 501c4. Political groups should be 527's regulated by the FEC, not 501c's regulated by the IRS.
So maybe it's because liberals aren't as eager to game the system?
(love the avatar btw...)
I'm not sure how a reasonable person can read the tax code at all. :lol: It's like being stuck in the "begat" section of the bible.
I am guessing is is because they just don't whine as much.
I'd have to say this seems like a pretty
"convenient" development, considering the IRS had apologized for its targetting of conservative groups and the White House had also apologized but said it had no part in the "scandal".
It's pretty simple, really - I'd assume that an organization whose entire enterprise is based on numbers would be able to quickly prepare a report that indicates the numbers of "conservative" groups that requested 501 status in the run up to the 2012 election, what number were granted status, and what number were required to perform a pretzel twist of privacy invasion in order to have their applications considered. Likewise, they should be able to provide similar numbers in their report for "liberal" groups applying and affected. Pretty easy for the American public to review that information and decide for themselves who's telling the truth and who's manipulating information for political gain.
For the supposedly "most transparent administration in history", these guys sure like to hide behind rocks until they're ferreted out.
I am guessing liberal groups don't have similar sounding names like conservatives do like "Tea Party."
These are results of the IRS
investigating itself so I am highly suspicious of their findings. I think there will be some clarification of this claim coming soon.
That was a lie Redress.
The recent claim Progressives were targeted.
The word " progressive " might have been added to the list but staffers were told to pass them through for approval while Tea Party Orginizations were held back for more " scrutiny".
Maybe you could name. Progressive group that was denied ?
So that aside, if the targeting was more wide spread why did Lois Lerner lie and say it was just rogue agents in Cinci ?
Why did she plead the Fifth ?
The IRS just told you the targeting lasted longer and was more wide spread but they cant find evidence of worng doing.
Do you guys like being lied to ?
Do me a solid and go to Drudge and read and post the link that Contradicts the IRSs new lie.
That Progressive groups were passed on through while Tea party groups were held back.
Thanks.
It was a joke along the lines of Tucker's joke.
Might want to think before you accuse people of lying.
I knew there was more to the story. This CIA claim has just made them look even more corrupt.
'Lookout List' Not Much Broader Than Originally Thought, Contrary to Reports | National Review Online
No redress, I'm accusing the Administration of lying, look at Sawyers post.
I just can't figure why you guys put up with it ?
You use National Review as a source, then ask othets why they put up with being lied too? LoLz!
A simplified tax code and this wouldn't even be a discussion.
I would prefer that the word progressive was in the search. I would hope it would bring us all together to reform the IRS monster.
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?