The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 251
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    4,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Different rules for Obama than other presidents? Why?
    Well I guess that since prior administrations were able to feed the poor and according to you this one cannot then maybe they are spending too much on personal extras


    2 members found this post helpful.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jul. 3, 2012
    Posts
    1,783

    Default

    Laura said
    However, what few realize, is that $$ paid in corporate taxes are now at their lowest level in 50 to 60 years.

    What point are you making Laura? Are you indicating the corporations should be paying higher taxes? By saying that the taxes are the lowest in 50/60 years, it SOUNDS like they're getting a better deal than the rest of us.

    I have a problem with class envy; with thinking somebody who has more should have less; with saying there should be a living wage.

    What is a living wage? Barely enough to keep home and hearth? Or maybe a horse with lessons once a week for little Susie. The problem with "a living wage" is that everybody has a different idea of what that means. For me, it would nnot include a lot of jewelry, or manis or pedis, clothes, entertainment. But for some people who think that IS living, they would feel cheated.

    Define a living wage.
    Ride like you mean it.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    8,769

    Default

    I love these phrases.
    So who's fault is it that the IRS is a bureaucratic wolf???

    I think it's the fault of those who cheat on their taxes.
    They unwisely decided to use key words to try to weed out the most likely suspects who were actually political organizations trying to disguise themselves as social welfare organizations.
    There are many who are willing to accept that the IRS operates on the presumption of guilt as justification for what they did. That needs some serious consideration. The IRS is a collection agency, not part of the legal system.

    And news flash; Most people don't cheat on their taxes.
    And how on earth can you conclude that applicants with the words tea party or constitution in their name would be the most likely to be a problem? That is simple bigotry.

    Obama, Pelosi, Reid and people on this thread rail against Citizens United. Shallow thinkers are quick to fall in line. However it appears that the only problem they have with the group is their ideology. Starting from that premise is textbook surpression of free speech.
    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    However, what few realize, is that $$ paid in corporate taxes are now at their lowest level in 50 to 60 years.
    This is a huge negative statement based on a small grain of truth. You want to raise tax rates? See last paragraph...

    That's not the same as tax rates. Tax rates and expenses are the highest in a decade. The amounts paid depend on income... Just like your personal income tax. In a recession or poor economy, everybody is making less income and paying less taxes.

    Raise the taxes further and collect even less revenue. Google Laffer curve. it's simple to understand.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ezduzit View Post
    Laura said
    However, what few realize, is that $$ paid in corporate taxes are now at their lowest level in 50 to 60 years.

    What point are you making Laura? Are you indicating the corporations should be paying higher taxes? By saying that the taxes are the lowest in 50/60 years, it SOUNDS like they're getting a better deal than the rest of us.

    I have a problem with class envy; with thinking somebody who has more should have less; with saying there should be a living wage.

    What is a living wage? Barely enough to keep home and hearth? Or maybe a horse with lessons once a week for little Susie. The problem with "a living wage" is that everybody has a different idea of what that means. For me, it would nnot include a lot of jewelry, or manis or pedis, clothes, entertainment. But for some people who think that IS living, they would feel cheated.

    Define a living wage.
    It's not class envy. As the percentage of corporate taxes of the total has gone down, the personal taxes have increased. I don't see how that could be class envy.

    Living wage would define a full time job that pays well enough to be above the poverty line. We're subsidizing those low wages now with food stamps, etc.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    2 members found this post helpful.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    This is a huge false statement based on a small grain of truth.

    That's not the same as tax rates. Tax rates and expenses are the highest in a decade. The amounts paid depend on income... Just like your personal income tax. In a recession or poor economy, everybody is making less income and paying less taxes.
    Yes, tax rates are the highest in a decade, because 10 years ago they were the lowest since the 50's.

    It's not a false statement at all. http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/news...axes/index.htm
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,316

    Default In a Nutshell....

    "When a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president. " Ted Cruz



  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jul. 3, 2012
    Posts
    1,783

    Default

    I'm a hearted bitch. Let's start first with the people who are in poverty because they CHOOSE to be. I don't owe them a living wage...they need to get their act together and get busy.

    The life choices that lay the foundation for success are the same for everyone: go to school, stay in school, keep your body clean and healthy, do not have babies before you can afford them, turn away from crime. It's the same for every body...regardless of race. And before you decry the schools, the neighborhood remember that kids are making out of those schools and neighborhoods and going on to be productive adults EVERY DAY.

    And before you tell me that people are born without boot straps, just remember VERY FEW people are without the power to make choices and help themselves. We, as citizens and our government should be there to help the truly needy.

    Yep, a hard hearted bitch. And honest.
    Ride like you mean it.


    9 members found this post helpful.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2011
    Posts
    1,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ezduzit View Post
    I'm a hearted bitch. Let's start first with the people who are in poverty because they CHOOSE to be. I don't owe them a living wage...they need to get their act together and get busy.

    The life choices that lay the foundation for success are the same for everyone: go to school, stay in school, keep your body clean and healthy, do not have babies before you can afford them, turn away from crime. It's the same for every body...regardless of race. And before you decry the schools, the neighborhood remember that kids are making out of those schools and neighborhoods and going on to be productive adults EVERY DAY.

    And before you tell me that people are born without boot straps, just remember VERY FEW people are without the power to make choices and help themselves. We, as citizens and our government should be there to help the truly needy.

    Yep, a hard hearted bitch. And honest.
    This personal responsibility thingy ,,, it just confuses the leftists... LOL


    11 members found this post helpful.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2011
    Posts
    1,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Yes, tax rates are the highest in a decade, because 10 years ago they were the lowest since the 50's.

    It's not a false statement at all. http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/news...axes/index.htm
    Higher rates on a lower base 30 years ago vs lower rates on a higher base today... You and Obammy share something in common,, a lack of understanding the tax code.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Nov. 8, 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,231

    Default

    The lowest tax rate, 1951-1963, was 20 percent. The highest was 90%.
    If I knew what I were doing, why would I take lessons?

    "Things should be as simple as possible,
    but no simpler." - Einstein


    2 members found this post helpful.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Jun. 20, 2006
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    793

    Default

    Lois plead the 5th. If the she and what the IRS did is all on the up and up, what's she afraid of? Just tell us what happened. Easy, the truth, simple enough request. Here, from a lawyer, are some fun questions for her:http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/25/lo...-takes-five/2/


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Dec. 4, 2005
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    6,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noms View Post
    Higher rates on a lower base 30 years ago vs lower rates on a higher base today... You and Obammy share something in common,, a lack of understanding the tax code.
    I recently took Taxation I, it's a senior level class required for the Bachelors of Science in Accounting. I firmly believe every single tax payer should take that class. A real eye opener and I really enjoyed it! But yes, the Code is not ready made for the average lay person and many have no clue how it swings with current political ideology.
    The Knotted Pony

    Proud and upstanding member of the Snort and Blow Clique.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,630

    Default

    Interesting article in the NYTimes...Groups targeted by IRS tested rules on politics":

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us...nted=2&_r=3&hp
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  15. #115
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 2012
    Posts
    1,701

    Default For those too busy to click on a link...

    Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics

    By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL LUO
    When CVFC, a conservative veterans’ group in California, applied for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, its biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress.
    The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the “defeat of President Barack Obama” while the I.R.S. was weighing its application.
    And the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature.
    Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications.

    But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.
    “Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”
    The stakes are high for both the I.R.S. and lawmakers in Congress, whose election fortunes next year will hinge in no small part on a flood of political spending by such advocacy groups. They are often favored by strategists and donors not for the tax benefits — they typically do not have significant income subject to tax — but because they do not have to reveal their donors, allowing them to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into elections without disclosing where the money came from.
    The I.R.S. is already separately reviewing roughly 300 tax-exempt groups that may have engaged in improper campaign activity in past years, according to agency planning documents. Some election lawyers said they believed a wave of lawsuits against the I.R.S. and intensifying Congressional criticism of its handling of applications were intended in part to derail those audits, giving political nonprofit organizations a freer hand during the 2014 campaign.
    After the tax agency was denounced in recent weeks by President Obama, lawmakers and critics for what they described as improper scrutiny of at least 100 groups seeking I.R.S. recognition, The New York Times examined more than a dozen of the organizations, most of them organized as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups under the tax code, or in some cases as 501(c)(3) charities. None ran major election advertising campaigns, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, the main activity of a small number of big-spending tax-exempt groups that emerged as major players in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
    But some organized volunteers, distributed pamphlets and held rallies leading up to the 2010 elections or the 2012 presidential election, as conservatives fought to turn out Mr. Obama.
    A report issued this month by the Treasury Department’s inspector general, J. Russell George, found that inappropriate criteria, including groups’ policy positions, were used to flag some cases and that specialists in the I.R.S. office in Cincinnati, which reviews all tax-exemption requests, sometimes asked questions that were irrelevant to the application process.
    And agency officials have acknowledged that specialists inappropriately used keywords like “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in searching through applications.
    But some former I.R.S. officials disputed several of Mr. George’s conclusions, including his assertion that it was inappropriate to ask groups about their donors, or whether their leaders had plans to run for public office. While unusual, the former officials said, such questions are not prohibited if relevant to an application under consideration.
    “The I.G. was as careless with terminology as the Cincinnati office was,” said Marcus S. Owens, who headed the I.R.S.’s exempt organizations division until 2000. “Half of those questions have been found to be germane in court decisions.”
    I.R.S. agents are obligated to determine whether a 501(c)(4) group is primarily promoting “social welfare.” While such groups are permitted some election involvement, it cannot be an organization’s primary activity. That judgment does not hinge strictly on the proportion of funds a group spends on campaign ads, but on an amorphous mix of facts and circumstances.
    “If you have a thousand volunteer hours and only spend a dollar, but those volunteers are to help a particular candidate, that’s a problem,” Mr. Tobin said.
    Agents may examine when and for how long a group advocates policy positions, in part to see whether those positions are associated with a specific candidate, which can be relevant to the group’s tax status, tax lawyers and former I.R.S. officials said.
    Agents may look at what a group publishes in print or on a Web site, whether it provides funds to other organizations involved in elections or whether a group’s officers are also employed by political parties. They may also consider other public information, former officials and tax experts said, though they are required to ask the organization to provide those materials or comment on them before the information can be included in an application review.
    “My experience has been that the agents immediately start Googling to see what the organization is doing outside of the application,” said Kevin J. Shortill, a former tax law specialist in the I.R.S.’s exempt organization division. “And that explains why you get these requests for information like, ‘Please print out your Web site and send it in.’ ”
    Emerge America, which trained women to run for office, was granted 501(c)(4) recognition in 2006, but its status was revoked in 2012. Training people how to run for office is not in itself partisan activity, but the I.R.S. determined that the group trained only Democratic women and was operated to benefit one party.
    At least some of the conservative groups that are complaining about I.R.S. treatment were clearly involved in election activities on behalf of Republicans or against Democrats. When CVFC, the veterans’ group, first applied for I.R.S. recognition in early 2010, it stated that it did not plan to spend any money on politics. The group, whose full name in its application was CVFC 501(c)(4), listed an address shared with a political organization called Combat Veterans for Congress PAC. CVFC told the I.R.S. that it planned to e-mail veterans about ways in which they “may engage in government” and provide “social welfare programs to assist combat veterans to get involved in government.”
    But later in 2010, as it awaited an I.R.S. ruling, the organization spent close to $8,000 on radio ads backing Michael Crimmins, a Republican and a former Marine, for a House seat in San Diego, according to Federal Election Commission records.
    The spending is not detailed in the group’s tax return for 2010, raising questions about whether it properly accounted for the expense to the I.R.S. The group also checked off a box marked “No” when asked if it had engaged in direct or indirect political activities on behalf of a candidate for political office.
    The group received two rounds of questions from the I.R.S. in 2012, according to its lawyer, Dan Backer. They included queries about the group’s donors and its exact relationship with Combat Veterans for Congress PAC. The agency also asked about CVFC’s activities, but the group neglected to bring up its radio ads in its follow-up responses.
    Mr. Backer called the agency’s questions “sweepingly overbroad” and said the group had answered them appropriately.
    In Alabama, the Wetumpka Tea Party organized a day of training for its members and other Tea Party activists across the region in the run-up to the 2012 election. The training was held under the auspices of the Adopt-a-State program, a nationwide effort that encouraged Tea Party groups in safely red or blue states to support Tea Party groups in battleground states working to get out the vote for Republicans.
    Adopt-a-State was a key component of Code Red USA, a get-out-the-vote initiative organized by a conservative political action committee. The goal of Code Red USA was made clear in one of its fund-raising videos, which told supporters: “On Nov. 6, 2012, Code Red USA authorizes the defeat of President Barack Obama.”
    Becky Gerritson, Wetumpka’s president, said in an e-mailed statement that her group engaged “mostly in education on all sorts of topics” and that the day of training was just one of a variety of events that it held for “educational purposes.”
    Some groups appeared to be confused or misinformed about the I.R.S. rules applying to their activity.
    Tom Zawistowski, president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, another Tea Party group that has complained about the scrutiny it received from the I.R.S., sent out regular e-mails to members about Romney campaign events and organized protests around the state to “demand the truth about Benghazi” when Mr. Obama visited before the 2012 election. The coalition also canvassed neighborhoods, handing out Romney campaign “door hangers,” Mr. Zawistowski said.
    The I.R.S. usually considers such activities to be partisan. But when Mr. Zawistowski consulted his group’s lawyers, he said, he came away understanding that the I.R.S. was most concerned with radio or television advertising. He said he believed that other activities, like distributing literature for the Romney campaign, would not raise concerns.
    “It’s not political activity,” he said.


    Mike McIntire contributed reporting.

    PUBLISHED MAY 26, 2013


    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us...al-limits.html
    Last edited by Bristol Bay; May. 27, 2013 at 06:46 PM.
    A helmet saved my life.

    2014 goal: learn to ride like TheHorseProblem, er, a barn rat!



  16. #116
    Join Date
    Nov. 8, 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bristol Bay View Post
    Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics

    By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL LUO
    When CVFC, a conservative veterans’ group in California, applied for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, its biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress.
    The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the “defeat of President Barack Obama” while the I.R.S. was weighing its application.
    And the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature.
    Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications.
    But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.
    “Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”
    The stakes are high for both the I.R.S. and lawmakers in Congress, whose election fortunes next year will hinge in no small part on a flood of political spending by such advocacy groups. They are often favored by strategists and donors not for the tax benefits — they typically do not have significant income subject to tax — but because they do not have to reveal their donors, allowing them to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into elections without disclosing where the money came from.
    The I.R.S. is already separately reviewing roughly 300 tax-exempt groups that may have engaged in improper campaign activity in past years, according to agency planning documents. Some election lawyers said they believed a wave of lawsuits against the I.R.S. and intensifying Congressional criticism of its handling of applications were intended in part to derail those audits, giving political nonprofit organizations a freer hand during the 2014 campaign.
    After the tax agency was denounced in recent weeks by President Obama, lawmakers and critics for what they described as improper scrutiny of at least 100 groups seeking I.R.S. recognition, The New York Times examined more than a dozen of the organizations, most of them organized as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups under the tax code, or in some cases as 501(c)(3) charities. None ran major election advertising campaigns, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, the main activity of a small number of big-spending tax-exempt groups that emerged as major players in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
    But some organized volunteers, distributed pamphlets and held rallies leading up to the 2010 elections or the 2012 presidential election, as conservatives fought to turn out Mr. Obama.
    A report issued this month by the Treasury Department’s inspector general, J. Russell George, found that inappropriate criteria, including groups’ policy positions, were used to flag some cases and that specialists in the I.R.S. office in Cincinnati, which reviews all tax-exemption requests, sometimes asked questions that were irrelevant to the application process.
    And agency officials have acknowledged that specialists inappropriately used keywords like “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in searching through applications.
    But some former I.R.S. officials disputed several of Mr. George’s conclusions, including his assertion that it was inappropriate to ask groups about their donors, or whether their leaders had plans to run for public office. While unusual, the former officials said, such questions are not prohibited if relevant to an application under consideration.
    “The I.G. was as careless with terminology as the Cincinnati office was,” said Marcus S. Owens, who headed the I.R.S.’s exempt organizations division until 2000. “Half of those questions have been found to be germane in court decisions.”
    I.R.S. agents are obligated to determine whether a 501(c)(4) group is primarily promoting “social welfare.” While such groups are permitted some election involvement, it cannot be an organization’s primary activity. That judgment does not hinge strictly on the proportion of funds a group spends on campaign ads, but on an amorphous mix of facts and circumstances.
    “If you have a thousand volunteer hours and only spend a dollar, but those volunteers are to help a particular candidate, that’s a problem,” Mr. Tobin said.
    Agents may examine when and for how long a group advocates policy positions, in part to see whether those positions are associated with a specific candidate, which can be relevant to the group’s tax status, tax lawyers and former I.R.S. officials said.
    Agents may look at what a group publishes in print or on a Web site, whether it provides funds to other organizations involved in elections or whether a group’s officers are also employed by political parties. They may also consider other public information, former officials and tax experts said, though they are required to ask the organization to provide those materials or comment on them before the information can be included in an application review.
    “My experience has been that the agents immediately start Googling to see what the organization is doing outside of the application,” said Kevin J. Shortill, a former tax law specialist in the I.R.S.’s exempt organization division. “And that explains why you get these requests for information like, ‘Please print out your Web site and send it in.’ ”
    Emerge America, which trained women to run for office, was granted 501(c)(4) recognition in 2006, but its status was revoked in 2012. Training people how to run for office is not in itself partisan activity, but the I.R.S. determined that the group trained only Democratic women and was operated to benefit one party.
    At least some of the conservative groups that are complaining about I.R.S. treatment were clearly involved in election activities on behalf of Republicans or against Democrats. When CVFC, the veterans’ group, first applied for I.R.S. recognition in early 2010, it stated that it did not plan to spend any money on politics. The group, whose full name in its application was CVFC 501(c)(4), listed an address shared with a political organization called Combat Veterans for Congress PAC. CVFC told the I.R.S. that it planned to e-mail veterans about ways in which they “may engage in government” and provide “social welfare programs to assist combat veterans to get involved in government.”
    But later in 2010, as it awaited an I.R.S. ruling, the organization spent close to $8,000 on radio ads backing Michael Crimmins, a Republican and a former Marine, for a House seat in San Diego, according to Federal Election Commission records.
    The spending is not detailed in the group’s tax return for 2010, raising questions about whether it properly accounted for the expense to the I.R.S. The group also checked off a box marked “No” when asked if it had engaged in direct or indirect political activities on behalf of a candidate for political office.
    The group received two rounds of questions from the I.R.S. in 2012, according to its lawyer, Dan Backer. They included queries about the group’s donors and its exact relationship with Combat Veterans for Congress PAC. The agency also asked about CVFC’s activities, but the group neglected to bring up its radio ads in its follow-up responses.
    Mr. Backer called the agency’s questions “sweepingly overbroad” and said the group had answered them appropriately.
    In Alabama, the Wetumpka Tea Party organized a day of training for its members and other Tea Party activists across the region in the run-up to the 2012 election. The training was held under the auspices of the Adopt-a-State program, a nationwide effort that encouraged Tea Party groups in safely red or blue states to support Tea Party groups in battleground states working to get out the vote for Republicans.
    Adopt-a-State was a key component of Code Red USA, a get-out-the-vote initiative organized by a conservative political action committee. The goal of Code Red USA was made clear in one of its fund-raising videos, which told supporters: “On Nov. 6, 2012, Code Red USA authorizes the defeat of President Barack Obama.”
    Becky Gerritson, Wetumpka’s president, said in an e-mailed statement that her group engaged “mostly in education on all sorts of topics” and that the day of training was just one of a variety of events that it held for “educational purposes.”
    Some groups appeared to be confused or misinformed about the I.R.S. rules applying to their activity.
    Tom Zawistowski, president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, another Tea Party group that has complained about the scrutiny it received from the I.R.S., sent out regular e-mails to members about Romney campaign events and organized protests around the state to “demand the truth about Benghazi” when Mr. Obama visited before the 2012 election. The coalition also canvassed neighborhoods, handing out Romney campaign “door hangers,” Mr. Zawistowski said.
    The I.R.S. usually considers such activities to be partisan. But when Mr. Zawistowski consulted his group’s lawyers, he said, he came away understanding that the I.R.S. was most concerned with radio or television advertising. He said he believed that other activities, like distributing literature for the Romney campaign, would not raise concerns.
    “It’s not political activity,” he said.


    Mike McIntire contributed reporting.

    PUBLISHED MAY 26, 2013


    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us...al-limits.html
    So it appears you had a political agenda after all.
    If I knew what I were doing, why would I take lessons?

    "Things should be as simple as possible,
    but no simpler." - Einstein


    2 members found this post helpful.

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Nov. 8, 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,231

    Default

    There is a reason as I said that I eschew posting on political threads during OT Day.

    Once in a while I forget the COTH mantra: Don't feed the trolls.
    If I knew what I were doing, why would I take lessons?

    "Things should be as simple as possible,
    but no simpler." - Einstein


    4 members found this post helpful.

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,630

    Default

    I don't think anyone is trolling...I think it's a huge left/right divide, with very few in the middle, fed by cable TV, talk radio and partisan websites.

    You want trolling? Go read a slaughter thread.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  19. #119
    Join Date
    Nov. 8, 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,231

    Default

    I'm a libertartian, hardly anyone in the middle of anything. But when a thread is started on the premise of neutrality and then the partisan bias of the original poster emerges as the window of discussion winds down, what would you call that?

    Disingenuous comes to mind, but 'troll' will serve.

    Were I authentically neutral and objective, but during the course of the discussion I experienced some kind of epiphany or resolution (or if I were a very accomplished troll), I would have posted something to the effect that I'd sorted out all the discussion and subsequently found that the entire article I quoted seemed to capture the essence of my take-away. I would have cited pieces and commented.

    I would not have quoted the entire thing out of the whole cloth with no context.
    Last edited by Adamantane; May. 27, 2013 at 06:58 PM.
    If I knew what I were doing, why would I take lessons?

    "Things should be as simple as possible,
    but no simpler." - Einstein


    2 members found this post helpful.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 2012
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamantane View Post
    I'm a libertartian, hardly anyone in the middle of anything. But when a thread is started on the premise of neutrality and then the partisan bias of the original poster emerges as the window of discussion winds down, what would you call that?

    Disingenuous comes to mind, but 'troll' will serve.
    This thread was started with the premise of expressing my disgust for the outrage against an agency that was doing its job and deserved the benefit of the doubt while undergoing an investigation. If you read the bolded sections of the NY Times article, organizations on both the left and right had their status denied or questioned, and deservedly so.

    I fault politicians on the left and right for rushing to condemn the agency for muddling through a confusing law, in isolation, and with little guidance from IRS lawyers.

    Furthermore, I decry the people calling for Lois Lerner's head on a platter for refusing to testify, which is her right under the Constitution, as long as a criminal investigation is underway. If Congress wanted the full story, they should have granted her immunity. They didn't.

    FWIW, your responses have been some of the most intelligent and well-reasoned posts in this thread. I don't deserve that label. At all.
    A helmet saved my life.

    2014 goal: learn to ride like TheHorseProblem, er, a barn rat!



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Jun. 23, 2010, 06:28 PM
  2. The Cocktail Party Thread (a.k.a. The "Jack This Thread")
    By i_x3_theponiez in forum Off Course
    Replies: 307
    Last Post: Jan. 28, 2009, 10:18 PM
  3. Replies: 37
    Last Post: Oct. 15, 2008, 02:13 PM
  4. Replies: 105
    Last Post: Apr. 5, 2004, 10:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •