What do you think when you hear 'Tea Party'?

What do you think when you hear 'Tea Party'?


  • Total voters
    30

IRC 501(c)(4) provides for exemption of:
Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.

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.

The statutory terms disclose that IRC 501(c)(4) embraces two general classifications:

a. Social welfare organizations, and
b. Local associations of employees.


So how is 501 c status applicable to political groups?
Are "Civic league or organization," and "promotion of social welfare," defined in the statute? Because, an organization instituted to raise awareness of how a return to our Constitutional principals would benefit society could, be construed as a "Civic league or organization not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare."

On the other hand, one could ask if "Organizing For Action," a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization associated with the Obama campaign met with the same onerous and burdensome vetting process to which conservative groups have apparently been subjected. Hint: It was not. In fact, it's approval was fast-tracked by the IRS.

We might agree that overtly political organizations should not be allowed to qualify for non-profit status but, whatever the rules, they need to be applied equally.

Link on the fast track? (I am not really expecting you to deliver with facts)

Rove's group had no more difficulty than Bill Burton's.
 
Alice in Wonderland.

alice25a.gif
 
Are "Civic league or organization," and "promotion of social welfare," defined in the statute? Because, an organization instituted to raise awareness of how a return to our Constitutional principals would benefit society could, be construed as a "Civic league or organization not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare."

On the other hand, one could ask if "Organizing For Action," a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization associated with the Obama campaign met with the same onerous and burdensome vetting process to which conservative groups have apparently been subjected. Hint: It was not. In fact, it's approval was fast-tracked by the IRS.

We might agree that overtly political organizations should not be allowed to qualify for non-profit status but, whatever the rules, they need to be applied equally.

Absolutely. Go after ALL of them, not just the huge increase of them since Citizens United.
Ah, but the scandal is not about who should and shouldn't be allowed non-profit status. It is about how this administration used the taxing agency to play ideological favorites.


There is no way they would be able to do that.

Educate yourself on the wall set up after Watergate.
 
Let's see who here is honest and who isn't. This is a public poll.

Politics.

What's your point? They are allowed to engage in political activities and many of the tea party 501(c)(4) applications were eventually approved. The IRS simply delayed their applications for years causing many groups to miss an election cycle.


In what possible way???

The IRS didn't prevent them from doing anything. They just didn't OK them doing it tax-free.
 
Yeah, Calling people names like Tea baggers and JUSTIFYING it by showing a picture of a 70 something year old man with tea bags on his hat as if HE KNEW what Tea bagging was..

I had never heard of it until the Tea Party and I damn sure would of STOPPED calling people that after I found out what it was..

but did they on the left?

like I said, small hateful people

I have to agree about what that term meant. I was innocent of that knowledge, as were most of my associates, acquaintances, and friends. I guess you have to be "progressive" to understand the unsavory meaning of "tea bagging".
Stephanie is a liar. It wasn't an old man.
 

IRC 501(c)(4) provides for exemption of:
Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.

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.

The statutory terms disclose that IRC 501(c)(4) embraces two general classifications:

a. Social welfare organizations, and
b. Local associations of employees.


So how is 501 c status applicable to political groups?
Are "Civic league or organization," and "promotion of social welfare," defined in the statute? Because, an organization instituted to raise awareness of how a return to our Constitutional principals would benefit society could, be construed as a "Civic league or organization not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare."

On the other hand, one could ask if "Organizing For Action," a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization associated with the Obama campaign met with the same onerous and burdensome vetting process to which conservative groups have apparently been subjected. Hint: It was not. In fact, it's approval was fast-tracked by the IRS.

We might agree that overtly political organizations should not be allowed to qualify for non-profit status but, whatever the rules, they need to be applied equally.

Link on the fast track? (I am not really expecting you to deliver with facts)
On what do you base your expectations of me?

dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-official-lerner-approved-exemption-for-obama-brothers-charity]Lois Lerner approved exemption for Obama brother's 'charity' | The Daily Caller

IRS official Lerner speedily approved exemption for Obama brother’s ‘charity’

I can't link because I'm a new member of the forum but, cut and past the above url and read the article. I was wrong, it wasn't OFA but Obama's half-brother who received special treatment. OFA, however, did not face any additional scrutiny.

In fact, in the article at the below url, I also found the reference claiming Miller, the "fired" acting commissioner, was over the group that did all this, while it was being done.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/fbi-irs-investigation_n_3278230.html]FBI Launching IRS Investigation Over Targeting Of Conservative Groups, Eric Holder Says

FBI Launching IRS Investigation Over Targeting Of Conservative Groups, Eric Holder Says

"At the time when tea party groups were targeted, Miller was a deputy commissioner who oversaw the division that dealt with tax-exempt organizations."

Rove's group had no more difficulty than Bill Burton's.
So?
 
Let's see who here is honest and who isn't. This is a public poll.

The Tea Party.

I think of low born white trash. Trailer park types, overweight. Wear their Christianity on their sleeve, but don't live very social conservative lives. Lots of divorce, non-biblical 2nd marriages and 3rd marriages, kids who have sex early and often. Lots of racism and ethnic anxieties. Discomfort around blacks. Okay with socialism like Medicare D because the GOP was created it, and furious at liberals for not supporting the Iraq War enough, and blame its flop & failure on them. Seething about the fact that Osama bin Laden was killed under the Presidency of Obama and not a Republican. Used to be much more open about their Birtherism, but not so open anymore, but they still believe Obama was born in Kenya and not in the US.

They feel that they are looked down on by liberals, and about that, they could not be more right.

You should go to a Tea Party rally with an open mind, look around at the people there, and see if the picture that the media has painted for you is accurate.
You mean pictures like this?


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are "Civic league or organization," and "promotion of social welfare," defined in the statute? Because, an organization instituted to raise awareness of how a return to our Constitutional principals would benefit society could, be construed as a "Civic league or organization not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare."

On the other hand, one could ask if "Organizing For Action," a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization associated with the Obama campaign met with the same onerous and burdensome vetting process to which conservative groups have apparently been subjected. Hint: It was not. In fact, it's approval was fast-tracked by the IRS.

We might agree that overtly political organizations should not be allowed to qualify for non-profit status but, whatever the rules, they need to be applied equally.

Link on the fast track? (I am not really expecting you to deliver with facts)
On what do you base your expectations of me?

dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-official-lerner-approved-exemption-for-obama-brothers-charity]Lois Lerner approved exemption for Obama brother's 'charity' | The Daily Caller

IRS official Lerner speedily approved exemption for Obama brother’s ‘charity’

I can't link because I'm a new member of the forum but, cut and past the above url and read the article. I was wrong, it wasn't OFA but Obama's half-brother who received special treatment. OFA, however, did not face any additional scrutiny.

In fact, in the article at the below url, I also found the reference claiming Miller, the "fired" acting commissioner, was over the group that did all this, while it was being done.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/fbi-irs-investigation_n_3278230.html]FBI Launching IRS Investigation Over Targeting Of Conservative Groups, Eric Holder Says

FBI Launching IRS Investigation Over Targeting Of Conservative Groups, Eric Holder Says

"At the time when tea party groups were targeted, Miller was a deputy commissioner who oversaw the division that dealt with tax-exempt organizations."

Rove's group had no more difficulty than Bill Burton's.
So?


Sorry - if you are going to use Tucker Carlson's RW site, you will have to come up with another source to back that up. He is no more trustworthy than Breitbart.

Note that in the first paragraph he calls the charity "shady" yet does not back that up in the least.


As for your "so?": Burton's and Roves got smooth sailing because they are both known entities. These fly-by-night teabagger groups that all sprung up in 2010 were not known entities, thus they needed to prove themselves as non-profits.
 
Link on the fast track? (I am not really expecting you to deliver with facts)
On what do you base your expectations of me?

dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-official-lerner-approved-exemption-for-obama-brothers-charity]Lois Lerner approved exemption for Obama brother's 'charity' | The Daily Caller

IRS official Lerner speedily approved exemption for Obama brother’s ‘charity’

I can't link because I'm a new member of the forum but, cut and past the above url and read the article. I was wrong, it wasn't OFA but Obama's half-brother who received special treatment. OFA, however, did not face any additional scrutiny.

In fact, in the article at the below url, I also found the reference claiming Miller, the "fired" acting commissioner, was over the group that did all this, while it was being done.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/fbi-irs-investigation_n_3278230.html]FBI Launching IRS Investigation Over Targeting Of Conservative Groups, Eric Holder Says

FBI Launching IRS Investigation Over Targeting Of Conservative Groups, Eric Holder Says

"At the time when tea party groups were targeted, Miller was a deputy commissioner who oversaw the division that dealt with tax-exempt organizations."

Rove's group had no more difficulty than Bill Burton's.
So?


Sorry - if you are going to use Tucker Carlson's RW site, you will have to come up with another source to back that up. He is no more trustworthy than Breitbart.

Note that in the first paragraph he calls the charity "shady" yet does not back that up in the least.
So, was the non-profit fast-tracked or not? I say it was and I'm fairly certain a quick search of the internet will produce non-Carlson confirmation.


As for your "so?": Burton's and Roves got smooth sailing because they are both known entities. These fly-by-night teabagger groups that all sprung up in 2010 were not known entities, thus they needed to prove themselves as non-profits.
Amazing that you're defending that which the IRS has already admitted was wrong. You do, of course, realize the IRS has confessed to improperly harassing conservative groups seeking 401(c)(4) non-profit status, right? Simply amazing.
 
What do I think of when I hear Tea Party? Cucumber sandwiches!
I also think of peaceful groups who haven't hurt anybody even though they are certainly the bane of the far left wing. I also think of liberals so pathetically dishonest that they pretend to be Tea Partiers as they carry racist signs. They've been caught more than once doing that. Of course "racist" now means you paint a Hitler mustache on Obama. If you paint a Hitler mustache on George W. Bush then it's "speaking truth to power". If one wants to point at racism, violence, vandalism and rape one has to go to the OWS crowd. [ame=http://youtu.be/qGFMA903Mdw]Useful Idiots OWS with Music Part I.m2ts - YouTube[/ame]
 
Let's see who here is honest and who isn't. This is a public poll.

Politics.

What's your point? They are allowed to engage in political activities and many of the tea party 501(c)(4) applications were eventually approved. The IRS simply delayed their applications for years causing many groups to miss an election cycle.


In what possible way???

The IRS didn't prevent them from doing anything. They just didn't OK them doing it tax-free.

These groups cannot operate unless they are tax-exempt. Donors generally do not contribute to for-profit groups, media purchases are different, and rules for activities are different. This is why there are no for-profit groups on the left either.
 
Yeah, Calling people names like Tea baggers and JUSTIFYING it by showing a picture of a 70 something year old man with tea bags on his hat as if HE KNEW what Tea bagging was..

I had never heard of it until the Tea Party and I damn sure would of STOPPED calling people that after I found out what it was..

but did they on the left?

like I said, small hateful people

Talk about trying to write history, Stephanie. :lol:
 
Here's my impression of your average TEA PARTYIST

A patriotic American who busted their asses to make it in America, but one who has the conceit that anyone who is not on board with them is a communist.

They don't really understand why the problems exist (or who to blame) but they are fairly onboard about WHAT the problems are doing to them.

I could practically say the exact same thing about the OCCUPY WALL STREET crowd, incidently.
 
Yeah, Calling people names like Tea baggers and JUSTIFYING it by showing a picture of a 70 something year old man with tea bags on his hat as if HE KNEW what Tea bagging was..

I had never heard of it until the Tea Party and I damn sure would of STOPPED calling people that after I found out what it was..

but did they on the left?

like I said, small hateful people

Talk about trying to write history, Stephanie. :lol:

And she NEVER calls people names ......
:eusa_liar:
 

Forum List

Back
Top