Nope, it’s koalas all the way down.
Regards,
Shodan
I am notfooledbyOP.
Clearly, it is. How about you give your definition?
There’s another difference in thinking. I argue that even if what the IRS was up to wasn’t deliberately motivated by politics: that is, if no one involved had the thought that it would assist the Democratic Party, undermine a threat to the Republican orthodoxy, or anything like that; it was still wrong, and still scandalous. That is to say, the conduct the IRS has already admitted to is a scandal all on its own.
You position seems to be that if it wasn’t an attack on political opponents by the Obama Administration, then it’s of no consequence. I couldn’t disagree more.
I’m calling it right now, when he responds (and respond he will), it will be in triple post form.
I have never said the mistakes made were of no consequence. I am saying if the mistakes made by a Republican and his underling were looked at as they were first reported in the Treasury investigation - everyone should hold off labeling it a scandal that just some how must have originated from Obama himself.
It (using short-cuts to detetmine which applications get further scrutiny) is not a scandal worth a damn unless right wing anti-government types can tie it to the one politician they detest.
The way to convert a mistake into a scandal is to hype the anger (snapping sounds of the jackboots of tyranny) and find enough people willing to drop any regard for an examination of the facts and go along with the label that this is an Obama scandal and we will need to examine this to death and keep dripping harmful tidbits to the scandal frenzied herd.
And this mistake annoys me since it is surrounded by a bigger mistake in that these Tea Party political movements have been granted tax exempt status for doing social welfare work.
According to the rule as written in 1957 there is to be no politics at all coming through these groups.
The mistakes approving these groups in violation of the IRS law I guess can’t be inched up to scandal status because Wolf Blitzet has no interest in labeling that mistake a scandal.
It is troubling that these groups applying for status while openly admitting they do political activities get to bitch and moan because those political activities were selected for more scrutiny - by a Republican no less.
So why go along with the herd is still a question that should be answered.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
I have never said the mistakes made were of no consequence. I am saying if the mistakes made by a Republican and his underling were looked at as they were first reported in the Treasury investigation - everyone should hold off labeling it a scandal that just some how must have originated from Obama himself.
[/QUOTE]
In this thread, who is saying this? You are arguing against a strawman. It doesn’t need to originate with Obama himself in order to be a scandal. Why this seemingly simply point is beyond your ability to grasp is a mystery.
Of COURSE. That’s the nature of political scandal. Rival political parties are going to try and make hay out of anything that gives the current administration a black eye. We had years of this under Bush, with every little thing he did being scrutinized by the left, with myriad attempts to make political hay out of anything and everything they thought they could get traction with. Fortunately, Bush was a target rich environment, but still, sometimes things become scandals and sometimes they don’t, depending on the public and it’s whimsical attention. In this case, there is enough public interest and enough public apologies from the IRS and even the administration to take this into the realm of scandal. That it’s not a scandal splashing particularly on Obama is making the right grind it’s teeth, but doesn’t detract from the plain fact that it IS a freaking scandal. Why you can’t simply accept that is, again, a mystery. Even the IRS and Obama acknowledge it’s a scandal.
I think we abandoned that subject about 7 pages ago and have been quibbling over the definitions of “scandal” and “CT” ever since.
Agreed - assuming that Obama, or anyone else, must have, or must not have, been involved or responsible before an investigation has been completed is partisan hackery.
Obama needn’t be involved for it to be a scandal, though.
Eh, it’s worth a damn to me in either case. But yes, it’s much more important if Obama is implicated.
We do need to examine this to death, and learning that your organization was singled out based on the political implications of its name would put you in a sour mood too, I bet. It’s the sort of thing we don’t have to put up with in this country, and I’d like to keep it that way.
501(c)4 exempt organizations can engage in political activity (for example, a Save The Whales organization can and will lobby for pro-whale laws), it just can’t be their primary activity.
Ask someone who believed instantly that Obama was behind this; I don’t and never did.
The law says ‘exclusively’. - why not get to bottom of who change the law to ‘primarily’.
There is no confusion or blurred interpretation with the law as written.
But we have to be lectured by these groups that the IRS is akin to the jackboot of tyranny because these political groups didn’t get fast enough what they should not have gotten in the first place - if we go according to law:
Introduction
Reg. 1. 501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i) provides that:
[A]n organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the community.
Will I have to hear that primarily and exclusively mean essentially the same thing?
You’re an American - you don’t have to hear a damn thing.
A scandal to me is some disgraceful action performed by an individual that is a public figure such as a politician or entertainer that has entered the public realm and has a public record and reputation at stake.
This so-called IRS scandal involved a couple of regular unknown workers in the bowels of the IRS who made a mistake and it may have been a mistake induced by severe lack of clarity of the law being assessed by them.
What 3/4 of Americans did including so many self righteous folks here was to glom a mistake by private individuals onto the public figure and government behemoth known unaffectionately as the IRS.
The trouble with the herd mentality of 3/4 Americans is that the IRS as the celebrity did not make the error that kicked off all the scandal mongering - it was a few individuals out if 70,000 that set you all off
So from me and perhaps some of the 25 percent of Americans who have not joined the scandal mongers in assailing the entire IRS and escalation of potential scandal to Obama himself - I say you are wrong - and that the majority if the herd that labels a mistake by two or a few more employees as a scandal - having a majority committing that error does not make it right.
You mean the Supreme Court? By all means, get to the bottom of them.
IRS: Social Welfare Organizations
Bolding mine.
Yes, they can engage in political activity.
I told you had your own definition, and you denied it. Turns out, you do.
You mean it wasn’t up to the NotfooledbyW standard of what a scandal is? Duly noted, but meaningless.
What “private individuals”? Actions undertaken by IRS officials acting in their official capacity do, and should, reflect upon the IRS as a whole. That’s how all organizations work.
Was My Lai a scandal for the U.S. Army, or just Lt. William Calley?
The guy who calls the majority of his countrymen “sheeple” with a “herd mentality” wants to lecture us about self-righteousness.
“Assailing the entire IRS” means what, exactly? Calling for reforms? Calling for investigation?
But it says their tax exemption may or may not apply to funds that go to political activities. So we have a nightmare of a law that caused confusion that started a mistake that has escalated to identifying the IRS as part of the jackboot of tyranny.
And you sympathize with the accusers by trying to make excuses for TeaParty groups getting tax exempt status while doing political work with some front they call social welfare.
My Lai was a violation of military and international law that did not reflect upon the entire US military as s whole. Unless less you agree that one bad apple spoils the entire barrel.
The IRS controversy has revealed no violation and I don’t agree that the Republican that made a mistake should reflect poorly on the organization as a whole.
If you think Issa is conducting an investigation to find ways to correct the problem and reform the IRS there is not much advice that I can give you.
So, you now admit that 501(c)4 groups can engage in political activity, correct?
For someone that’s complained about “guilty until proven innocent”, you sure spend a lot of time declaring the guilt of groups and people you don’t like. 501(c)4 groups, Tea Party or otherwise, can engage in political activity; whether their non-political activity is a “front” or not has nothing to do with whether they are in compliance with the law. There’s no “sincerity” metric they must meet.
Ok, so My Lai was not a scandal for the U.S. Army. Right…you should have told them that back in '69, it would have been a great load off their minds.
Yes, it has, the targeting violated the IRS’ own regulations.
You have some strange ideas not only of what scandals and mistakes are, but what determines an organization’s reputation and standing. If this targeting scandal doesn’t reflect poorly on the IRS, and My Lei didn’t reflect poorly on the Army, what does reflect poorly on an organization? Anything? Since you’re ruled out “the actions of members acting in the name of the organization”, I’m at a loss, since that’s all that determines what an organization is or does.
He’s a politician, his goal is to discredit or embarass his opponents in order for his party to perform better in future elections. This is not a secret, it’s politics as usual.
Well, no. What you quoted limited them to lobbying for causes solely restricted to their purpose.
An environmental group could lobby Congress to put more funding into the EPA to clean up pollution.
They couldn’t buy ads saying, “Vote for Obama.” That exceeds their brief.
Yes, that is all true. That’s why I quoted it from the IRS. NotfooledbyW seems to believe that no political activity is permitted.
By your definitions … every mistake crime, mass murder is a scandal…
Scandal Mongers must love people like you. All they have to do is call something a scandal and there you are… willingly … go along and feed the pigs their slop.
My Lai was an atrocity, a massacre, it was a crime against humanity, in a war zone. The whole damned war was an atrocity to me and millions of anti-war protestors.
The atrocity happened in March 1968. The first Life Magazine
If the US military was harmed by the ‘scandal’ they didn’t apply much penalty for the ones who committed it.
And on that day… there were some American’s who did what is right.
No I do not accept your premise that My Lai was a scandal. It was an atrocity, a crime… in the midst of war.
Some bad apples did not make the whole barrel rotten.
And I don’t believe your loose lips labeling anything bad (That gets’s popular) is a scandal.
I think the operative words back in 1971 was that My Lai was a shameful atrocity.
Massacre it was it was and that is what it was referred to.
I think scandal is quite a mild label to apply to that mass murder of human beinga even if it happened in a miserable war zone.
Most references from the past and about My Lai refer to it as the My Lai Massacre.
I am sure there are references to the My Lai Scandal… but My Lai Massacre is the more appropriate label for that incident.
Bad Comparison HA, My Lai to the CINCI OFFICE Tea Party reviews…