Tea Party groups, Republicans slam IRS for flagging conservative groups

It's going to be a glorious disaster when all Americans have to open their private lives to the IRS.

Re: Meanwhile, in the Real World...

Is this where you up the ante to "WE WON'T BE SATISFIED UNTIL HE FIRES THE ENTIRE IRS!!11!"?

Not that many of us don't feel that way, but at least be honest enough to say so.

If you mean laughing at your , you're right.

So you don't see the IRS targeting specific groups, and withholding approval based on politicalthe views as worthy of discussion? Because I'm pressed to see the THE DRAMA...

When everything is a scandal, then nothing is really a scandal.

Maybe you guys should keep this in mind next time you shriek WORST PRESIDENT EVER when some low-level aide to an Obama Administration flunky steals a pen.

That was the Vice President.

Oh, sorry, House Of Cards...

If by "specific groups" you mean "anyone applying for 501 (c) (4) status and then engaging in political activities," you're correct.

And as the formatting might have suggested, the only Drama Queen I was laughing at in that post was Castle. But if you're feeling neglected, I can laugh at you, too.

A lot of people are being intentionally obtuse in this thread. Well, mostly Garamet.

So laughing at Castle is no longer a trend? Because I'd have thought you'd understand the nature of a 501(c).

What you neglect to consider is that I'm not addressing the IRS qua IRS, but the Red Room mindset. Nothing short of a complete disbanding of the government is going to satisfy a handful of hysterics here, and it's fun to watch them .

It's always fine to laugh at Castle.

He's so desperate for attention he wishes the IRS was unfairly investigating him, but he doesn't make enough money to even be on their radar.

Sorry, I forgot that you don't post on actual subjects. ( unless it's reposting White House press releases )

Please continue your mating dance with John Castle, we all love it so much.

We do?

Can we opt out or is this federally mandated as part of Obamacare that we love their mating dance? :flow2:

So what's on the table right now?

Smuggling guns to Mexican drug lords to kill American lawmen and undermine the Mexican government has been pretty much swept under the rug.

Letting a US diplomat die in an 8 hour siege and then covering it up to protect your reelection hopes seems to still have legs.

Funneling money to your campaign contributor's bankrupt companies seems to be dead.

Using the IRS to punish your Enemies and rig an election seems to be hot still.

Dropping punishment against people already convicted of campaign fraud when they are on your side has fallen by the wayside.

Trying to gut the Constitution seems to have failed in some ways and is too confusing in others.

But keeping tabs on the press is interesting. They've been his Magic Shield for so long. It will be interesting to see what happens if the AP decides to cut him free to fend for himself.

Jealous? Post more.

He might not understand the code -- quite a few people seem to be confused regarding the point that political groups aren't supposed to incorporate under 501(c)4.

Well, that certainly explains why "progressive" (Statist) groups got away with it so easily.

No doubt you have a list.

True, they probably read the requirements and filled out the paperwork properly.

See? If only you'd told the IRS how ardently you believe in the spotlessness of their collective halo, they wouldn't have admitted to having played partisan politics.

Truly, your hero worship of the state knows no limits.

Surely you're capable of refuting him.

Does gul have evidence that the Tea Party groups didn't fill out their paperwork? Because someone has already posted that a progressive group, ran by Obamas brother IIRC was stamped right on through.

What is there to refute when even gul hedges his bets with "probably"? Oh, they "probably" read the requirements? They "probably" filled out the paperwork properly?

Well, it's even more probable that the IRS was playing favorites. And here's substantiation for that particular "probably": They admitted to it.

A 501c4 that essentially sells access to the president. Nope, not political, not at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/03/04/organizing-for-action_n_2805175.html

So here's how it's going so far:

Tea Partiers: "The IRS is playing dirty pool."
LeftForge: "No they're not!"
IRS: "Actually, yeah, we were."
Tea Partiers: "Told you."
IRS: "Yeah, our bad. Sorry about that. We apologize, we were playing partisan."
LeftForge: "NO YOU WEREN'T!"

You seemed so confident that "progressive groups get away with it so easily" that one assumes you have a list or...well, anything.

Flow pointed out a particularly telling example already.

And you've provided nothing.

Which does not equal "nothing has been provided" as you would clearly like to pretend.

Again, that's neither stated nor implied in anything I've posted.

It's like what I just told CD in the other thread: If you feel really strongly about your position, you should have facts at the ready to defend it. Calling the other person a liar and in post after post doesn't persuade anyone of anything except that you think you can win an argument by shouting really loud.

Which, as your usual posting style indicates, is one of your core beliefs, all evidence to the contrary.

Again, you mentioned progressives, in quotes, equating them with Statists, in parens.

Someone who really believed that would have plenty of examples of same.

You got nothin'.

Until...

...you went and stated it. Again. Quit your lyin', liar.

One example posted by evenflow =/= plenty of examples posted by JC.

See, this is really just another of those topics you know little about and care even less about.