RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth

RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 7:46:33 AM)
Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6--"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present." (mene, mene tekel upharsin) That is from your link, looks like a lot of technically confounding conundrums by people who are not speaking punctiliously. Yeah, like it says, nobody was removed from office, how does that fit in the constitution.>>>>> The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Geez, that didn't happen. I surely hope you aren't blaming the Republicans for there not being a budget. They have passed budget resolutions every year starting in 2011. It's the Democrats that haven't passed the budgets. Obama hasn't even been given a budget to sign. Well, of course that is a technicality as well. They haven't passed a budget, because their dogshit wont fly and they will not come to agreement, ergo id est they are the root of the problem and the authors of it.

vincentML -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 8:18:58 AM)
quote: They didn't claim tax exemption as "social organizations." I think you might be defining "social improvement or benefit" in a different way than the IRS, too. There are limitations in place on what these organizations can do, and as long as they are following the letter of the law, then, there isn't anything to complain about. The IRS, according to some commentators and congresspersons mis-interpreted the law by issuing regulations that changed the word "exclusively" to "primarily." The Law as it now stands and has stood all these years is this: (A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. If you find something in the Law that provides for political groups or superpacs to have tax exempt status please let me know.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 8:25:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6--"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present." (mene, mene tekel upharsin) That is from your link, looks like a lot of technically confounding conundrums by people who are not speaking punctiliously. How is it you try something that isn't in existence? How do you "try all impeachments" if, as you are alleging, a President has to be found guilty before being impeached? Talk about a conundrum... quote: Yeah, like it says, nobody was removed from office, how does that fit in the constitution.>>>>> The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Geez, that didn't happen. I'm assuming you understand binary and Boolean logic, based on your profile avatar. Article 2 Section 4 states that removal of office is dependent on 2 (or 10b things). There has to be an impeachment for - here is where it gets tricky, so put on your seatbelt - AND conviction of. Boolean logic states that both inputs have to be true for the output to be true. Was Clinton impeached? Yes. Two articles of impeachment were passed by the House (2 others were not). Was he convicted? No. Since there was only one true input out of the two, the output, removal from office, wasn't true. quote: quote: I surely hope you aren't blaming the Republicans for there not being a budget. They have passed budget resolutions every year starting in 2011. It's the Democrats that haven't passed the budgets. Obama hasn't even been given a budget to sign. Well, of course that is a technicality as well. They haven't passed a budget, because their dogshit wont fly and they will not come to agreement, ergo id est they are the root of the problem and the authors of it. A "technicality?" LMAO! You can't even admit that the Democrats have a part in there being no budget! Holy fuck, dude!

DesideriScuri -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 8:30:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: They didn't claim tax exemption as "social organizations." I think you might be defining "social improvement or benefit" in a different way than the IRS, too. There are limitations in place on what these organizations can do, and as long as they are following the letter of the law, then, there isn't anything to complain about. The IRS, according to some commentators and congresspersons mis-interpreted the law by issuing regulations that changed the word "exclusively" to "primarily." The Law as it now stands and has stood all these years is this: (A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. If you find something in the Law that provides for political groups or superpacs to have tax exempt status please let me know. What definition of "social welfare" are you using? That's the real issue, not whether or not the organization is operating exlusively or primarily for it. This is where you'll find your answer.

mnottertail -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 8:32:34 AM)
AHEM. Nobody will ever accuse the teabaggers of promoting a vigourous social program. Not ever.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 9:04:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail AHEM. Nobody will ever accuse the teabaggers of promoting a vigourous social program. Not ever. What definition of "social benefit" are you using?

Real0ne -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 9:16:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Thank you. I got my answer on another thread Peace and comfort, Michael [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stufff/ges.jpg[/image] US equal protection under the law! as I complained about in the other thread all you have to do is say hey asswipe I didnt do anything and you that is legally constructed as copping a plea. when it comes to government their liability is narrowly constructed and like trying to hit a gnat at warp speed while the liability of the people is expansively construed to be as wide as a sporta arena so you are guilty because you are alive. who gave the government the authority to create courts for the people as a branch of government in the first place? Oh wait that was construed as well, just like the police state. who benefits from statist legal construction? well if they want to claim you cannot say anything with regard to the subject matter then giving your identity falls under the same parameters since they want your identity to look you up and make sure you have the statist seal of good housekeeping approval. There should not be any reason to identify yourself either, or the way this should work is that you take the 5th with particular specificity.

mnottertail -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 9:27:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail AHEM. Nobody will ever accuse the teabaggers of promoting a vigourous social program. Not ever. What definition of "social benefit" are you using? None, where do you see that phrase? It would be oxymoronic to couple that phrase within the same library as teabagger.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 9:36:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail AHEM. Nobody will ever accuse the teabaggers of promoting a vigourous social program. Not ever. What definition of "social benefit" are you using? None, where do you see that phrase? It would be oxymoronic to couple that phrase within the same library as teabagger. My bad. What definition of social welfare are you using?

vincentML -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 9:37:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: They didn't claim tax exemption as "social organizations." I think you might be defining "social improvement or benefit" in a different way than the IRS, too. There are limitations in place on what these organizations can do, and as long as they are following the letter of the law, then, there isn't anything to complain about. The IRS, according to some commentators and congresspersons mis-interpreted the law by issuing regulations that changed the word "exclusively" to "primarily." The Law as it now stands and has stood all these years is this: (A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. If you find something in the Law that provides for political groups or superpacs to have tax exempt status please let me know. What definition of "social welfare" are you using? That's the real issue, not whether or not the organization is operating exlusively or primarily for it. This is where you'll find your answer. You are really reaching into fantasyland if you are suggesting that a political group organized to win an election is providing social welfare. Nowhere in the public discourse on radio and TV has such a claim been made. I realise it is okay to color outside the line occasionally but your posts have been too intelligent and truthful to let this answer pass. Please reference the 'controversy' about the meaning of "social welfare" as it applies to political groups.

Real0ne -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 9:44:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Please reference the 'controversy' about the meaning of "social welfare" as it applies to political groups. could it be a subset of general welfare which is the unauthorized hence unconstitutional construction for the implied now defacto poiice state? no intent to answer for him, just a point I would like clarified as well.

mnottertail -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 9:47:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail AHEM. Nobody will ever accuse the teabaggers of promoting a vigourous social program. Not ever. What definition of "social benefit" are you using? None, where do you see that phrase? It would be oxymoronic to couple that phrase within the same library as teabagger. My bad. What definition of social welfare are you using? None relating to teabaggers, the concepts are mutually exlusive. the most common definition of social welfare is: the various social services provided by a state for the benefit of its citizens. There aren't going to be any definitions anywhere of it that would differ from that substantially. Otherwise it would not be social welfare, but some other word.

vincentML -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 9:48:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Please reference the 'controversy' about the meaning of "social welfare" as it applies to political groups. could it be a subset of general welfare which is the unauthorized hence unconstitutional construction for the implied now defacto poiice state? no intent to answer for him, just a point I would like clarified as well. Could be but it isn't since it does not refer to nor give tax exemption status to the police state except in Orwellian la la land.

Real0ne -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 9:55:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Please reference the 'controversy' about the meaning of "social welfare" as it applies to political groups. could it be a subset of general welfare which is the unauthorized hence unconstitutional construction for the implied now defacto poiice state? no intent to answer for him, just a point I would like clarified as well. Could be but it isn't since it does not refer to nor give tax exemption status to the police state except in Orwellian la la land. last time I checked state agencies were tax exempt

Real0ne -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 9:57:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail AHEM. Nobody will ever accuse the teabaggers of promoting a vigourous social program. Not ever. What definition of "social benefit" are you using? None, where do you see that phrase? It would be oxymoronic to couple that phrase within the same library as teabagger. My bad. What definition of social welfare are you using? None relating to teabaggers, the concepts are mutually exlusive. the most common definition of social welfare is: the various social services provided by a state for the benefit of its citizens. There aren't going to be any definitions anywhere of it that would differ from that substantially. Otherwise it would not be social welfare, but some other word. ok so its a trust? and the citizens are the beneficiaries? and the state is the highly paid trustees?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 10:00:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML You are really reaching into fantasyland if you are suggesting that a political group organized to win an election is providing social welfare. Nowhere in the public discourse on radio and TV has such a claim been made. I realise it is okay to color outside the line occasionally but your posts have been too intelligent and truthful Thank you for that compliment. quote: to let this answer pass. Please reference the 'controversy' about the meaning of "social welfare" as it applies to political groups. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail None relating to teabaggers, the concepts are mutually exlusive. the most common definition of social welfare is: the various social services provided by a state for the benefit of its citizens. There aren't going to be any definitions anywhere of it that would differ from that substantially. Otherwise it would not be social welfare, but some other word. It is rare that I cite Daily Kos, however I think they broke it down quite accurately.

mnottertail -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 10:06:06 AM)
I will accept that definition. Again, nothiing that teabagger groups are advocating.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 10:22:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I will accept that definition. Again, nothiing that teabagger groups are advocating. Just because you disagree with the goals and aims they advocate doesn't mean what they advocate isn't included in the IRS's definition of "social welfare." Which is why the right-leaning groups all had their applications accepted.

mnottertail -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 10:40:29 AM)
The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. I do not believe that the IRS definition differs from this and that they are in violation of it. Whether you agree with it or not.

vincentML -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 10:55:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. I do not believe that the IRS definition differs from this and that they are in violation of it. Whether you agree with it or not. The above wording mandated that IRS employees examine the amount of political activity and that lead to the claims of discrimination by the Right. The IRS definition does not comply with the wording of the Law, however. The IRS expands the Law in its Regs by changing the meaning of exclusively to primarily. Where does that come from? To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements).

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875