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

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



Message


DesideriScuri -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 11:43:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
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).


Do you not understand that lobbying for certain policies is operating to promote social welfare?






DaddySatyr -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 12:04:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
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).


Do you not understand that lobbying for certain policies is operating to promote social welfare?





DS, ya have to do it in "Lefty Language"

When ACORN was still operating, was it a matter of social welfare that they did what they could to keep abortion legal?

Of course a lefty will agree that that is "social welfare".



Peace and comfort,



Michael




mnottertail -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 12:05:20 PM)

Acorn was not a 503 group.  Stupider analogies have never been crafted on the entire internet.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 12:14:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Acorn was not a 503 group.  Stupider analogies have never been crafted on the entire internet.


I call bullshit. Go read Alex Jones and get back to me. [:D]




mnottertail -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 12:15:15 PM)

Nope dont read foolish dumbasses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(4)#501.28c.29.284.29

They were a 501(c)(4).  Done deal. 




DesideriScuri -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 12:28:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Nope dont read foolish dumbasses


Which is precisely why you don't know that stupider analogies have never been crafted on the entire internet. [:D]

(wasn't arguing against your claim of ACORN's status)




vincentML -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/24/2013 1:30:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
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).


Do you not understand that lobbying for certain policies is operating to promote social welfare?


I understand lobbying for certain policies operate to promote self-interest not social welfare. I am surprised you include the lobbying for social welfare within your conservative philosophy.




MrRodgers -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/25/2013 11:59:10 AM)

She's gone now anyway so we now have two repub desired sacrificial lambs gone from the IRS. So can we get on with the normal business of more fillibusters please ?

Now this admin. could have say...outed some CIA field agent (clearly a felony and impeachable as anything) for speaking truth but the dems aren't as good as the repubs on this kind of illegality.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/25/2013 1:06:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

She's gone now anyway so we now have two repub desired sacrificial lambs gone from the IRS. So can we get on with the normal business of more fillibusters please ?

Now this admin. could have say...outed some CIA field agent (clearly a felony and impeachable as anything) for speaking truth but the dems aren't as good as the repubs on this kind of illegality.


This thread was started before Lerner "testified" in front of congress so, at the time, it wasn't about "moving on".

As far as your reference to outing the CIA agent, I stand with you (and did, then). The trouble is; the dems dropped the ball on getting anything done about it.

Both parties have become adept at "blaming the other guy" but, isn't time we moved on from that ? I don't give a flying fuck who's in power, this country has some serious issues and the fish stinks from the head on down.

We have a federal government that runs rough-shod over our rights; that pretty much does whatever the hell they want with impugnity; that feels empowered to do what it is they do and we have a bunch of mind-numbed sheeple (on both sides) that want to rubber stamp everything the government does.

Isn't it time we realize that the "enemey" that needs to be fought is the very system that people on both sides defend no matter what damage the system does to us?



Peace and comfort,



Michael




VideoAdminChi -> RE: Lois Lerner is Taking the Fifth (5/26/2013 4:42:49 AM)

FR,

A number of posts were removed for various violations, as were posts that quoted or replied to them. If your content is still relevant and you would like it back to repost, please write to me.

Please stick to the topic and do not make other posters the topic.

Thank you for your participation.

Moderator VideoAdminChi




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875