Liberal Forum

That's not the 'law' genius.The law on 501 C 4 groups says, "Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare."http://www.law.corne...ode/text/26/501Got that Puss? 'Exclusively' for the promotion of social welfare.None of these political organizations, left or right, should be tax exempt.Well gosh, you'd never lie, would you? Naaah! So you're saying that I'm lying about what the law actually says, even though I gave you a link?501 C(4) 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.Internal Revenue Code-See pages 163-164http://constitution....l/068A_itax.pdfGo ahead.....call me a liar again, because that's all you've got.You call people liars in the face of all evidence to the contrary.Don't you think people notice that Jackhole?

So you're saying that I'm lying about what the law actually says, even though I gave you a link? Go ahead.....call me a liar again, because that's all you've got. You call people liars in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Don't you think people notice that Jackhole? Hey moonbat, if "all the evidence" supports you, why did you ignore my source and cut out my words? Did you think no one would notice? I call you a liar because it's proven beyond any doubt that you are. When is the last time you wrote a post complaining about the $1 billion Obama raised? Or about Democrat 501 (4)'s? liberal groups have operated for decades in the same way GPS does without Democrats complaining. Democrats were content to have 501(4) groups active as long as they were operating on behalf of liberals and their causes. For example, no Democratic leader demanded the IRS investigate the 501(4) arms of the League of Conservation Voters, National Abortion Rights Act League, VoteVets, NAACP, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club and other liberal organizations that have spent millions excoriating Republicans, pushing liberal issues and registering voters. When Americans United for Change ran ads in 2007 slamming Republican senators up for re-election for supporting the surge of additional U.S. troops in Iraq, no Democratic lawmaker complained. Nor did Mr. Durbin gripe in 2011 when Bill Burton, his former staffer and an Obama White House official, organized Priorities USA, a 501(4) to help the president's cause. In addition, no Democratic leaders decried big money's influence when groups registered under section 501(5) of the federal code—the tax exemption for labor, agricultural or horticultural organizations—spent hundreds of millions from corporate treasuries on advocacy and political activity. That's because Democrats believe unions are more deserving of tax-exempt status than other organizations, and that corporate contributions are bad unless they come from unions' corporate treasuries. http://online.wsj.co...1200175592.html

I call you a liar because it's proven beyond any doubt that you are.So you're going to stick to your claim that I'm lying about what the actual law says about non-profit groups.Even though you or anyone else can clearly see that it says what I said it does.Brilliant strategy.When is the last time you wrote a post complaining about the $1 billion Obama raised?Or about Democrat 501 (4)'s?Can you read?None of these political organizations, left or right, should be tax exempt.I believe left would apply to Democratic 501 C 4's, don't you?I'm going to continue to ignore you now, as you clearly are out of gas and grasping at straws.

So you're going to stick to your claim that I'm lying about what the actual law says about non-profit groups. Even though you or anyone else can clearly see that it says what I said it does. Brilliant strategy. So you're seriously claiming that all those liberal groups including those associated with Obama, Clinton and countless Democrats were violating federal law? Then why weren't you complaining about them many years ago? Demanding that Dems be prosecuted? Because as usual, you're lying trying to cover up Obama's abuse of the IRS. and it's your cover story to pretend it was all illegal, even though at the time you never, EVER claimed that. I'm going to continue to ignore you now, as you clearly are out of gas and grasping at straws. Translated into honest English, your Democrat Talking Point Lies are exhausted, non-credible and cannot stand up under examination. So you're running away, as usual.

I'm going to continue to ignore you now, as you clearly are out of gas and grasping at straws. The last refuge of a liar and a coward. Cite one single time before the IRS scandal you claimed that liberal 501(4)'s were illegal. But now you can lie that you never saw my question, not that you'd have answered it anyway.

I'm going to continue to ignore you now, as you clearly are out of gas and grasping at straws. Gosh, I thought this was "a Misty joint." Where'd she go? Spouted a couple blatant lies and fled. Cite one single time before the IRS scandal you claimed that liberal 501(4)'s were illegal.

So you're seriously claiming that all those liberal groups including those associated with Obama, Clinton and countless Democrats were violating federal law?Yes.Then why weren't you complaining about them many years ago? Demanding that Dems be prosecuted?Because until this issue with the IRS came up, I had never read the actual statute.Had you?Gosh, I thought this was "a Misty joint." Where'd she go? Spouted a couple blatant lies and fled.What part of "I'm going to continue to ignore you now" did you not understand?

FYI Clem:The original statute passed by Congress in 1954 requires 501 C(4) organizations to be engaged exclusively in social welfare activities.The IRS in 1959 without authority from Congress changed Congress' intent in it's regulations on 501 C(4) organizations, to be only primarily for social welfare.There is a big difference between 'exclusively' and 'primarily'.The IRS had no right to change the meaning and intent of the law in it's regulations.

So you're seriously claiming that all those liberal groups including those associated with Obama, Clinton and countless Democrats were violating federal law? Then why weren't you complaining about them many years ago? Demanding that Dems be prosecuted? Yes. Because until this issue with the IRS came up, I had never read the actual statute. Had you? Hey, I have to give you credit. That's a very creative lie! You NEVER, EVER considered that 501(4)'s were illegal until, shazzam, the IRS starts bullying conservative groups! Not when Obama and Democrats raised $1 billion dollars, nope, only after Repubs began competing with that. That's why I call you the most talented Propagandist and liar on the board. FYI Clem: The original statute passed by Congress in 1954 requires 501 C(4) organizations to be engaged exclusively in social welfare activities. About which you NEVER EVER woke up while liberal groups were spending 100's of millions of dollars. Only after the IRS began bullying conservative groups you had that sudden heaven sent rise in consciousness. Hey, I buy that!

...until this issue with the IRS came up, I had never read the actual statute.Hey, I have to give you credit. That's a very creative lie!Maybe that's because it's not a lie.I never had any reason to read the 1954 statute on non-profit groups.Did you?It only came to my attention that the IRS regulations were in conflict with the actual statute after this IRS situation came to light.You NEVER, EVER considered that 501(4)'s were illegal until, shazzam, the IRS starts bullying conservative groups! 501 C 4's are not illegal, but according to the law they are to operate solely as 'social welfare' groups.The IRS had no right to change the word 'exclusively' which is in the law, to 'primarliy' in their regulations.I never accused any of these groups of breaking the law.It's not their fault if the IRS screwed up.Not when Obama and Democrats raised $1 billion dollars, nope, only after Repubs began competing with that.Obama and Democrats had a 501 C 4 that raised $1 billion dollars?What was the name of it?I find that curious considering that during the 2012 election cycle, all of the 501 C(4) groups combined spent $255 million on elections. That's no where near $1 billion, is it?I wonder who the real liar here is?That's why I call you the most talented Propagandist and liar on the board.Sorry, Puss. That title goes to you.Where is the lie or the propaganda in what I've said?Are you saying that the IRS regulation on 501 C 4's does not conflict with the actual law?You know that it does, but you'll just deny reality and continue to call me a liar.It just makes you look silly and foolish to deny reality.Unlike you (partisan hack) I have repeatedly stated that neither side, left or right should be getting tax exempt status for what are clearly political groups.Congress needs to fix this mess.

CREW Sues IRS for Failing to Revise Rules Governing 501 C(4) GroupsWashington, D.C. Today, (May 31) Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the agency to initiate a rulemaking procedure to address serious conflicts between the Tax Codes requirements for section 501(4) groups and implementing IRS regulations. Current IRS regulations grant tax-exempt status under section 501(4) of the Tax Code to groups "primarily engaged" in promoting social welfare. The tax laws, however, require such groups to be "operated exclusively" for social welfare purposes.CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan stated, "As the ongoing IRS scandal shows, the 501(4) regulation is unmanageable. It clearly conflicts with the Tax Code and IRS employees are simply at a loss as to how to apply it. Remarkably, the IRS has known the regulation presents enforcement issues for more than 50 years, but has failed to act. CREW has sued to force the IRS to finally deal with this issue."Groups seeking or claiming 501(4) status have interpreted the IRS regulation to mean they can spend up to 49 percent of their annual expenditures on electoral activities, while still maintaining tax-exempt status. During the 2012 election cycle, section 501(4) groups spent nearly $255 million on elections. In April, following up on its earlier lawsuit against the IRS, CREW filed a rulemaking petition with the agency seeking a revision to this regulation to eliminate the glaring loophole that allows these tax-exempt groups to engage in substantial political activity while keeping the identities of their donors secret.The discrepancy between the "operated exclusively" standard of the law and the "primarily engaged" language of the regulations has been controversial within the IRS ever since the regulations were enacted in 1959. The IRS revisited the problem multiple times in the 1960s and 1970s, but did nothing. Additionally, since 2011, at least two rulemaking petitions seeking to correct the problem have been filed, with the IRS responding merely that it is aware of the issue."Until now, it has been impossible to persuade the IRS or Congress to confront this issue. But now that the entire country has been educated about this previously obscure tax matter, this lawsuit may finally spur reform," continued Ms. Sloan. "The current IRS scandal directly stems from the problematic regulation. Only by changing it can we be sure we wont see a repeat of the current debacle."Like the article says, the IRS regulations on 501 C 4 groups adopted in 1959 directly conflicts with the statute adopted in 1954.This is exactly what I have been saying, yet Clem accuses me of lying about it and spreading propaganda.Perhaps Clem can tell me what the supposed lie is?

Hey, I have to give you credit. That's a very creative lie! Maybe that's because it's not a lie. I never had any reason to read the 1954 statute on non-profit groups. Did you? It only came to my attention that the IRS regulations were in conflict with the actual statute after this IRS situation came to light. Yes, yes, shazzam, you suddenly were made aware of this supposed illegality only after conservative groups did exactly the same thing liberal groups have done for decades. So should Obama be impeached? Because he and his aides aided and abetted this vast network of illegal activity. Which Democrats should step down and be indicted? Which liberals should be indicted? I await a, snicker, honest answer from you. 501 C 4's are not illegal, but according to the law they are to operate solely as 'social welfare' groups. The IRS had no right to change the word 'exclusively' which is in the law, to 'primarliy' in their regulations. I never accused any of these groups of breaking the law. It's not their fault if the IRS screwed up. Oh, so the IRS was sleeping through years and years and years of liberal groups including Clinton's and Obama's PACs doing exactly this, but suddenly woke up when conservative groups starting doing the same? Can't you even tell believable lies? Obama and Democrats had a 501 C 4 that raised $1 billion dollars? What was the name of it? Not what I said. However, over the course of two elections, pro-Obama and pro-Democrat groups likely spent that much. Without the IRS targeting them. That's why I call you the most talented Propagandist and liar on the board. Sorry, Puss. That title goes to you. Can't you even tell believable lies? Unlike you (partisan hack) I have repeatedly stated that neither side, left or right should be getting tax exempt status for what are clearly political groups. Yeah, sure, except that you only arrived at that fake position after conservative groups were targeted by the IRS. Just another Democrat Talking Point Lie.

Like the article says, the IRS regulations on 501 C 4 groups adopted in 1959 directly conflicts with the statute adopted in 1954. This is exactly what I have been saying, yet Clem accuses me of lying about it and spreading propaganda. Perhaps Clem can tell me what the supposed lie is? So now you're claiming that a change in regulations in the '50's is the reason the IRS harassed and intimidated conservative groups? Hey, that's believable. Otherwise, what's your point, moonbat? Leftist Groups Enjoy IRS Tax-Exempt Status While Tea Party Suffers Campaign finance zealots and free speech regulators have sought to stifle the freedom of conservative organizations, such as the Tea Party, by falsely claiming they are “political” while giving a pass to leftist groups that still enjoy unimpaired 501 IRS tax-exempt status. As the IRS attacked Tea Party groups, it left hundreds of leftist activist groups alone.http://www.breitbart...a-Party-Suffers

Yes, yes, shazzam, you suddenly were made aware of this supposed illegality only after conservative groups did exactly the same thing liberal groups have done for decades.Are you really this dense, or are you just pretending to be?Like the article from CREW said, because of this recent situation with the IRS, "the entire country has been educated about this previously obscure tax matter."You do know what 'obscure' means don't you? It means that I, like many other people were only recently made aware of the fact that the IRS has not been following the actual statute for over 50 years.I dare say not many people knew of the discrepency between the actual statute and the IRS regulations until this targeting of right wing groups was revealed.Did you know about it?Oh, I forgot, you still don't admit that there is a discrepency, even after you've seen that the IRS regulations directly conflict with the actual law.According to you, that's just another one of my lies.Although, you seem to think that the Liberal groups are guilty of something. LOLIf so, why have you never said anything about all of those left wing groups you speak of who have been illegally getting tax exempt status for 'decades'? Hmmmm?The law says these groups should be 'exclusively' engaged in social welfare activities, while the IRS regulations say they need be only 'primarily' engaged in them.I don't know about you, but in my world, exclusively and primarily don't mean the same thing.The fact is that the IRS has been misinterpreting the Tax Code on 501 C 4's for years.And even though they knew it, they failed to fix it.This should not be a partisan issue, but with you, everything is partisan.I have repeatedly said that the law should apply to both Conservative and Liberal groups, yet you continue to accuse me of wanting it only to apply to Conservative groups.You are so out of gas Puss.

So now you're claiming that a change in regulations in the '50's is the reason the IRS harassed and intimidated conservative groups? That is so stupid, I don't even know where to start.

Yes, yes, shazzam, you suddenly were made aware of this supposed illegality only after conservative groups did exactly the same thing liberal groups have done for decades. Are you really this dense, or are you just pretending to be? Translated into honest English, you're about to lie, dissemble and bleat endless irrelevant nonsense. It's not about the IRS changing an interpretation 60 years ago, imbecile. Look, a squirrel! What does this have to do with the fact that Obama's IRS targeted, harassed and bullied only conservative groups? Although, you seem to think that the Liberal groups are guilty of something. LOL If so, why have you never said anything about all of those left wing groups you speak of who have been illegally getting tax exempt status for 'decades'? Hmmmm? I do not and never have. 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. Suddenly you're bleating something entirely irrelevant, claiming that the IRS has been improperly interpreting a regulation. You're as usual trying to distract from a huge Democrat scandal. Look, a squirrel! Nice try, but no cigar.

Suddenly you're bleating something entirely irrelevant, claiming that the IRS has been improperly interpreting a regulation.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.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.Now....lest you think I'm running from you in fear (LOL), I'm off to have dinner with my husband.

Gosh, I thought this was "a Misty joint." Where'd she go? Spouted a couple blatant lies and fled. You ran away crying when Romney, whom you told us 'til we were crosseyed was going to be our next prez, got stomped into the ground. How long did it take you to lick your wounds and man up enough to come back? It was so long I forget.

Look, a squirrel!

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.