Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[11B4V]

 

IRS stalled conservative groups, but gave speedy approval to Obama foundation

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-16/politics/39310148_1_tax-exempt-status-foundation-application

[merithyn]

Did you read the article?  It sounds like you're talking about something else.

It was the article that precipitated the response. It is that article - "he said this!", "no, he said this!", "nuh uh, the emails say this!", "no they don't! yer stoopid!" - that made me feel like I was listening to my kids argue over stupid shit that neither will even remember tomorrow. In six months, what is this going to mean to anyone?

It's a game of "gotcha'", and I don't have time for it - from either side.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm disappointed in Valmy drinking the Kool-Aid of Konspiracy.

You seemed fine with it when I was complaining about Bush doing the same shit.

That's because the Bush Administration was being run by Darth Cheney, the Hand of Evil Himself.

[11B4V]

I'm disappointed in Valmy drinking the Kool-Aid of Konspiracy.

You seemed fine with it when I was complaining about Bush doing the same shit.

That's because the Bush Administration was being run by Darth Cheney, the Hand of Evil Himself.

Cop out.

[CountDeMoney]

Pfft, that's so not a cop-out.

Besides, there were some things done by the Bush Administration that I didn't necessarily have a problem with in the first place.

[Jacob]

I'd rather you tell me. 

I did

No.

Then you are setting up the following choice:

a) Obama is horrible because of what he did in these terrible "scandals"; or
b) Obama is horrible because he had nothing to do with these terrible "scandals", which proves that he does nothing.

It's pretty clear that you've decided that Obama is horrible, whatever the fact pattern.

[derspiess]

I'd rather you tell me. 

I did

No.

Then you are setting up the following choice:

a) Obama is horrible because of what he did in these terrible "scandals"; or
b) Obama is horrible because he had nothing to do with these terrible "scandals", which proves that he does nothing.

It's pretty clear that you've decided that Obama is horrible, whatever the fact pattern.

What have I said about what Obama did in these scandals?  You're acting like I've given the impression that I think Obama is some sort of evil genius pulling all the strings, and I don't believe I have.

[garbon]

So the IRS investigation was completed a year ago but they just recently decided to spill it?  Yowza.

And you are surprised?  The Executive Branch loves its secrecy.

But it was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history  

I'm sure the election had nothing to do with it.

Wait that was a campaign promise, wasn't it? 

Yeah but we all knew at the time that such would never happen. For one thing, it doesn't even make sense to do so.

[derspiess]

Yeah but we all knew at the time that such would never happen. For one thing, it doesn't even make sense to do so.

I was actually hopeful he'd follow through with it.  I didn't want him to win in 2008 but it would've been one of those "silver lining" things for me had it happened.

Either way, it doesn't let him off the hook for not following through.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sometimes diplomacy is dangerous, and sometimes being the most forward deployed assets representing America's interests in dangerous and ambiguous environments--a role in which Ambassador Stevens embraced in Libya--can be costly when things go wrong.

It's a terrible tragedy and a terrible loss of dedicated individuals in harm's way, but it's not a scandal.  It's the cost of doing business at the tip of America's diplomatic spear.

Indeed.
And Stevens was the Ambassador.  He could have said - I'm not budging from Tripoli until the security gets beefed up; let the CIA deal with Benghazi on their own.  As the man on the ground, he made the informed decision to run the risk of that trip, because of the benefit it could bring to US interests in the region.  It was a courageous decision, but tragically one that cost him his life.  Exploiting that tragedy to score political points against Obama is disgraceful.

[The Minsky Moment]

IRS stalled conservative groups

I still don't undertsand this "stalling" business.
If the IRS doesn't rule, the organization gets to claim the deduction in the meantime.

[garbon]

Yeah but we all knew at the time that such would never happen. For one thing, it doesn't even make sense to do so.

I was actually hopeful he'd follow through with it.  I didn't want him to win in 2008 but it would've been one of those "silver lining" things for me had it happened.

Either way, it doesn't let him off the hook for not following through.

As I called him the chocolate milk kid, I don't care much about any of the promises he broke - other than that they help confirm my opinion.

[Jacob]

Then you are setting up the following choice:

a) Obama is horrible because of what he did in these terrible "scandals"; or
b) Obama is horrible because he had nothing to do with these terrible "scandals", which proves that he does nothing.

It's pretty clear that you've decided that Obama is horrible, whatever the fact pattern.

What have I said about what Obama did in these scandals?  You're acting like I've given the impression that I think Obama is some sort of evil genius pulling all the strings, and I don't believe I have.

Well... I asked you if you conceded there was no substance to the scandals, and you did not. So it seems you're still trying to have it both from piles a) and b), or maybe just from one of them - as long as the conclusion is that Obama is horrible. You have not allowed for, even theoretically, a scenario in which Obama is not horrible in relation to the IRS and Benghazi "scandals".

So yeah it seems pretty clear that you started with your conclusion and are working backwards from there.

[Kleves]

If the IRS doesn't rule, the organization gets to claim the deduction in the meantime.

Do they keep that deduction even if their application is later rejected?

[CountDeMoney]

If the IRS doesn't rule, the organization gets to claim the deduction in the meantime.

Do they keep that deduction even if their application is later rejected?

As no applications have been rejected to this point, that's a hypothetical question.