srinath wrote on 05/16/13 at 19:41:59:Daney daney daney, you're late to this game.
When did this "Daney" thing happen? This is Star's lame attempt, can't you come up with your own material?
Quote: I have presented the points well before you thought you had a trump card. Looks like you had the worm that looks like donald trump that has just been discovered in the amazon.
Back to the fool-speak I see, I get the feeling demolishing your following spew is not going to make a difference for you but maybe the rest of us can learn something.
Quote:In no specific order these are the points.
And with no specific logic or supporting data I expect.
Quote:The IRS with Bush's direction investigated NAACP and greenpeace for no reason in 2003 and 2006.
Yep, just as I thought. Just for kicks, though, so what? How did this affect the elections in 04 and 08? Oh, that's because you are doing apples and oranges again.
Quote:They only investigated 100 TEA and patriot and 300 total. I'm hearing 3200 new applications were filed, and over 1000 had TEA in the name.
If that's the case - these numbers look positively like too few were pulled even as a random sample. I think its a case of the republicans letting their fellow fund raisers off the hook too easily, and the ones that were inconvenienced even a little are squealing like pigs when there is a democrat in the WH trying to pin it on someone from the other side.
No evidence so it didn't happen. Just for giggles, 10% is a pretty big sample, especially since similar groups with the name Obama and such breezed through. Evidence, which you obviously didn't read, is above. See, the trick is to back up what you say with real world information and you have failed to do that.
Quote:The next point is - new 501c4 was all that was scrutinized. The 501c4 organizations were supposed to be non political. The fact that they had TEA in their name = they were political.
Any proof or just more spew? I think a group whose purpose is to protect the population from government tyranny is the epitome of a social welfare group.
Quote:Their scrutiny was well deserved.
Says the guy whose self-identified but greatly more dubious groups breezed through the system is record time.
Quote:They also had scrutinized "patriot" and 200 others. 200 out of 300 were not TEA or patriot. They searched for political terms in a non political application in their article of incorporation. What part of that isn't clear to you.
I think you need to break out that dictionary again because you just proved my point without meaning to. Yes they searched for political terms for only those on the conservative side. I could say there is no such thing as a liberal social welfare group and that they are all political.
Quote:You're going to have to show they scrutinized TEA but not Obama. Else this is a republican lead witch hunt.
Done!! As an added bonus, Obama publicly "fired" the IRS guy, who only had a month left anyway, so I agree with Obama, it isn't a Republican led witch hunt. Don't even think of disagreeing with Obama!!
Quote:It seems to me that the IRS was merely doing their job. Teabaggers claiming tax exemption because they're a non political social welfare group?? Really? ...Besides, 25% of the groups "targeted" were bagger groups. Who were the rest and why aren't they bitching about it?
Wow, you know we all can read, right? And you know that we know that a group with the word Tea and a group with the word Patriot both might be Conservative? I find your abuse of percentages hilarious!!!
Quote:Nothing I have seen ur read shows that the Tea Party was treated worse than other political groups seeking tax exempt status, instead I am seeing what appears to be a clear example of the Tea Party actually being shown favoritism over other political groups.
That is because you are soo blindly partisan that if Obama himself came to your home and confessed to this scandal while giving you a run-n-tug, you would still deny it ever happened.
Quote:There is plenty more - its in this thread.
Went though from start to finish looking for your backup and there is none. Again, you have provided no substance, just wild theories and accusations. It's like De Ja Vu.
Quote: Your points are a regurgitated version of what Web has been posting.
Thank you!!! I am honored to be in such esteemed company!!
Quote:TEA baggers are complaining. They were 40%+ of applicantions and less than 30% of scrutiny - and less than 10% total was even pulled for scrutiny. The bigger point is, 501c4 is non political. The fact they have TEA = political. They should not just have been scrutinized, they should have been outright rejected. I'd say they got off very very lightly due to Bush appointees running the place.
This is going to end up with you hating Mormons again, isn't it?? I love how TEA = political. Let me try Liberal = fascist. Funny thing is, I can find more proof to my claim than you can for yours.
Pages: 
