What procedures, if any, were in place before 2010 to validate an organization’s 501©(4) tax-exempt status?
“That has no bearing on this discussion unless you are offering up your own CT as a counter to it.” Originally Posted by tomndebb.
So I asked you this question, “And where does your last statement (see above) have credibility of logic to reach the conclusion you reached. I know of no formula or debate principle that would allow you to go where you went.”
And this was your reply:
“Given that it is a CT that you are proposing, one would presume that you had a purpose in mind that you hoped to achieve. I simply “asked the question” as to whether fooling a different sector of the public was your actual intention. You do not have a problem with me asking a question, do you?” Originally Posted by tomndebb.
The record shows that I did not challenge your question. I challenged that you made a conclusive statement about my intent that is not supported by logic, reason or any basis whatsoever.
From what I can tell the same procedures were in place in 2011 that were in place in 2008 all under the direction of a Bush appointee that Obama held over. The issue occurred when words like Tea Party in applicants names were used as a short cut to send those applications to what they call centralization.
They should have reviewed content and they would have been sent to centralization anyway.
You obviously don’t know how the tax system in the US works.
The obvious answer to that, per your OP, is Left Wing Fake Scandal Mongering. Correct? It’s pretty clear that is the central thrust of your OP. Turn the tables on them with crazier shit than even the Crazy Right can come up with.
How’s that working out for you? Judged by this response to this thread, on a predominantly left-wing board I’d say, not so good.
Nope.
I have already explained that I would need an answer to my question that was supported by the facts. The right does not expect or need or require that phase.
T&D made it all up about the CT and Glenn Beck Stuff.
But, why would the question I asked be crazier than what the right is getting away right now and all the time to have basically 75% of the US public leaning their way.
That fact that you think my OP is ‘crazier’ than what the Right does… is sort of the real jist of my question.
So what can be done about it? That is what this is about.
If those doubled between 2009 and 2010 then it’s possible that the policy was in response to an increased workload. However, your link doesn’t say that the doubling occurred between 2009 and 2010. In fact, my link indicates that the number of applications decreased in 2010 and 2011, and didn’t increase until 2012, which was well after the policy was initiated.
Do you have anything that shows an increase in workload between 2009 and 2010?
Your OP is, quite literally, a conspiracy theory. It is a theory alleging a conspiracy.
I’d say the key to avoiding scandal is refraining from doing anything scandelous. So, I’d advise Obama to put procedures in place such that he is to swiftly be informed of any untoward goings-on in the branch of government he heads, and procedures to discourage the untoward goings-on in the first place.
Does anyone? 
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
But, why would the question I asked be crazier than what the right is getting away right now and all the time to have basically 75% of the US public leaning their way.
[/QUOTE]
It’s probably not any crazier than the right wing loonies and their various CTs…but that’s a pretty low bar. And most of the crazier RW CTs aren’t bought in to by that level of the population as a whole. How many people REALLY believe that Obama isn’t an American citizen? I’m guessing it’s pretty low, outside of some RW bastions.
No, he was trying to explain to you why what you are proposing is a CT. It IS a CT, and while it might not be more loony than a similar RW CT, it’s still loony, without a shred of actual evidence to support it.
I suppose you can take some pride in the fact that, no, your pet theory isn’t crazier than the bat shit crazy RW crowd. I think John was just being hyperbolic…I doubt he really thinks your theory is more insane. 
Based on CTs we’ve seen here before, nothing can be done about it except to try and fight ignorance and conspiracy theory as best we can, and hope that any on the fence about it sees how your arguments have been shredded and you’ve yet to produce any proof and that they will make the right call. All that can be done.
At least your CT is different than the usual 9/11 Truther type stuff we get here. 
I am more interested in T&D’s logic for why he thinks it is a CT. I asked a ‘what if’ to stir some thought about what some here are finally talking about.
What does not happen here is a fair cross-examination using the written words that various posters use to make their case.
I have responded to T&D’s logic pointing out how flawed it was to make the conclusion that he made. He used 'if X says y then it has to be that X means z.
The rest of your post is reasonable and fair game for discussion - so I wish you would comment on what I also wrote that my intent with the question I asked had much more to do with how great the irony of it all would be if this latest RW hysteria over a simple lack of clarity of some rules was all instigated by a couple of RWingers themselves.
I wrote it. I know what my intent was. And people should not use shady logic to declare it something else.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
What does not happen here is a fair cross-examination using the written words that various posters use to make their case.
[/QUOTE]
What case? You’ve presented no actual evidence, just speculation. The irony of you doing this and then complaining about loony right wing CTs is pretty much off the charts. Basically, the use of the term ‘False Flag’ is going to set off red flags, since it’s exactly the same sort of loony phrase-ology that 9/11 Truthers have been using for years now. So, in order for you to even start making a case such that anyone is going to take you seriously, you need to present some evidence, not mere speculation. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs…and you haven’t even presented ordinary proofs as yet.
Sure, here are my thoughts on your OP:
COULD it have happened? Certainly…all things are possible. But the probability is low that the Tea Party would have the means to both initiate this ‘false flag’ operation AND be able to cover it up so thoroughly that no one has spilled the beans or gotten even a sniff of it.
Also, I don’t see how they would need to go to such elaborate means to get their fellow Tea Party followers to be against ObamaCare, or down on Obama et al…they are already in that mode. I’m not seeing a lot of Tea Party ‘civil disobedience and rebellion against paying Federal Income taxes’ at this point either…at least not over this latest dust up. I’m seeing a lot of outrage, some real and more politically motivated. This was a big time fuck up, and the Republicans and Tea Party folks are trying, unsurprisingly, to make the most political hay out of this as they can possibly squeeze out of it.
:dubious: Even assuming for a moment that the Tea Party DID have the means and ability to do something like this and keep it secret, how could someone so powerful, smart and capable as the folks who could pull that off be so stupid as to not realize that this wouldn’t have any hope in hell of bringing Obama down?? That’s just silly to even think it COULD do that. And if you were going to do something like that, why would you do something so mild as this?? I mean, if you really wanted to make an impact and take the massive risk of it being found out, why do something as prosaic as this silly scandal? Why not go for broke, and have the false flag IRS not only target only Tea Party or associated groups and members, but throw the book at them…or maybe even do some Watergate type stuff, or even assassinations of Tea Party members?? THAT would be a scandal that, if you could pull it off would make the risk/reward meaningful, as assuming you didn’t get caught it would have the potential to actually damage Obama et al in a meaningful way and bring up the real possibility of impeachment…though why in the gods name anyone would want to replace Obama with Biden is still a major flaw in the plan.
The whole notion is silly, though that doesn’t automatically disprove it. What does pretty much preclude it is what kills all of these CTs…the fact that there is zero evidence, the fact that in reality you couldn’t get away with it or that no one would squeal and talk.
Senator Ted Cruz is on Mark Levin right now celebrating the testimony of individuals who testified in the House today as victims of what they call the jack-booted government thugs in the IRS.
Cruz is calling for abolishing the agency of jack booted thugs - if not now when.
None of which supports your thesis…it merely proves that people opposed to Obama are trying to make the most political hay out of this as they can, and are preaching their pap to the converted and telling them what they want to hear. Sheesh man…these are freaking POLITICIANS here, you know?
What case? -XT.
I was referring to my case against T&D’s flawed logic.
I have not tried to make a case for a CT because I did not launch a CT.
No one is interested in a cross examination of T&Ds logic. That’s fine but I believe it is fair to point it out. First that flawed logic was used and no one wishes to discuss it.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
I have not tried to make a case for a CT because I did not launch a CT.
[/QUOTE]
The OP is pretty clearly a CT. You do know what a CT is, correct? You are positing a Tea Bag Party conspiracy that is a theory, are you not? If it’s not a theory, then you’d need to provide some of that proof stuff. It would have to be a conspiracy if it was a ‘False Flag attack by a couple of IRS employes to lead to mainstream Tax Revolt’, or do you deny this??
I read his posts and I’m not seeing the flawed logic, to be honest.
Why should they be?? 
YOU are the OP, it’s your thesis/theory, and that is and should be the major thrust of the discussion. Unless someone disagrees with something Tom said, why SHOULD they cross examine it?
Why are you fixated on this? Shouldn’t you be defending your OP and responding to the numerous requests that you back up your theory with some data…or at least make some sort of meaningful logical rebuttals to the questions being asked you??
He’s made it clear that he doesn’t believe his OP, so I guess it’s not surprising that he is unwilling to defend it.
I read his posts and I’m not seeing the flawed logic, to be honest.-XT.
Did you read my post where I pointed out what is flawed?
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Did you read my post where I pointed out what is flawed?
[/QUOTE]
I read the exchange, yes…it was over several posts, and I honestly thought Tom did a good job of defending his own position. As he usually does. Again, I’m puzzled why you are so fixated on this, or why you expect me or any other poster to care about that aspect of the debate. That’s between you and Tom. Had I seen something in Tom’s response that I disagreed with, he’d be the first to tell you that I’d have had no problem disagreeing with him.
But this is all a hijack of your own thread. If you no longer want to defend your OP, that’s fine…just let the thread die. Better yet, admit that it was just a theory with no evidence and THEN let it go. There will be other debates and other fights.
This is not supposed to be a witch hunt so I have nothing to defend.
When do we get to hear your opinion on the trumped up RWer scandal?