4 Jun 2013 5:24 pm
You're as usual trying to distract from a huge Democrat scandal. Look, a squirrel! Nice try, but no cigar. Yes. For decades, many groups were given tax exempt status who did not deserve it. That may be 'irrelevant' to you. To me, I think it's quite relevant considering the recent explosion in the numbers of groups that have been applying for tax exempt status. If the IRS targeted certain groups based on their political ideology, (which has yet to be proven) that was wrong. It may have just been a boneheaded way of trying to sort out groups that were political in nature. Given the sudden increase in the amount of groups (mostly right wing) applying for tax exempt status before the 2012 election, it is certainly not that far-fetched to think that a group that has 'Tea Party' in it's name might be involved in politics. Exactly as I said. You're covering up for Obama's IRS scandal. There was no huge appearance of groups, and even if there was, the IRS didn't treat liberal groups the same way. And lots of liberal groups had names that were just as likely involved in "politics," a term so vague as to be meaningless. It is entirely legal for a group, liberal or conservative, to buy ads informing voters about political issues, but somehow the only groups targeted by the IRS were conservative. I only point out your bulls*** because you NEVER, EVER complained about them, despite literally $1 billion or so dollars being spent over the last two elections. I don't know why you keep repeating that same old ****. That amount of money was not spent by Liberal 'tax exempt' groups, so it is in no way relevant to this issue. But keep blowing smoke by braying about it over and over. It's entirely relevant, because the IRS never harassed any of them. I don't know the exact amount off the top of my head, but spending by liberal 401(4)'s that would effect elections, presidential, Senate or House, was absolutely well into the many 100's of millions and very likely close to $1 billion. But Democrat Talking Point Liar that you are, you'll bleat about the change in IRS interpretation of a rule that happened 60 some odd years ago. Which no one is talking about except those hacks who want to change the subject away from the real scandal.