Originally Posted by playwrite

From Wiki -

- in short, a lot of room for subterfuge by huge anonymous donors - also known as Koch brothers, Karl Rove, and Jim DeMint.

And exactly who should be making the determination that the Koch brothers should get huge tax avoidance because they are trying to
'educate' voters rather than buy a candidate and an election?

Hello, Mr. Playwrite.

I don't quite understand why you're responding to me here.
I wasn't talking to you. I was asking M&L about some specific
content in his post that I didn't understand, and asked for clarification.


You see, I told you I wasn't going to respond to any of your posts due to your
in-ability to refrain from insulting other posters based on any conversation you
and I were engaged-in.

Then, I received this response:

Originally Posted by playwrite

Okay, got it.

I was coming here for something different - looking for more depth. Not going to happen. Frustrating but it is what it is. Moving on.

Peace be with you.

which I took as an offer for an armistice(which I accepted):

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

My sentiments exactly.


Prince

PS:

Pax, back atcha, Mr. Playwrite.

I believed we were in agreement on this concern.
Was I mistaken?


So anyway, I'm willing to address some of the comments you've made
(and I've got some questions), but I'm not convinced that you can keep
your insults directed only to me. So, if I engage you in a discussion, are
you capable of doing that? IOW, as far as any discussions between you
and I are concerned, you can still insult me, but can't insult any other poster.


Prince

PS: If so, maybe you could tell me how anyone would be getting "huge tax avoidance"
(or any at all, for that matter), if they contribute to a 501(c)(4)? IOW, what difference
is there between a 527 and a 501(c)(4) i/r/t taxes paid by the organization or paid by
any of their donors(contributors)?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

If so, maybe you could tell me how anyone would be getting "huge tax avoidance"
(or any at all, for that matter), if they contribute to a 501(c)(4)? IOW, what difference
is there between a 527 and a 501(c)(4) i/r/t taxes paid by the organization or paid by
any of their donors(contributors)?

527s are the Superpacs where donors have to be revealed; 501(c)(4)s are referred to as "dark money" because donors do not have to be revealed.

In theory, there is no difference in whether the tax dollar saved by the donor is done under 501 or 529. In practice, more and more donor dollars are being pushed through 501 rather than 527 because of it anonymous donor attribute - saved taxes that would not have been pursued under 527 because the donor would be revealed.

Moreover, to qualify as a 501(c)(4), organizations have to convince the IRS of their limited political campaign interventions. This results in considerable 'contortions' of the organization's role as presented by highly-paid legal teams and leads to the type of controversy we have seen over the IRS targeting.

This was the point M&L was making, and the supplemental information I provided fills in the detail.

I'm involved in a couple of 527s and 501s but stay far away from any 501s that have political campaign aspirations for the reasons noted above.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Hey, M&L.

To minimize any possible misunderstandings, you may want to consider using the term "tax-exempt non-profit" in place of "charitable group(s)" .

The more accurate term is, unfortunately, less illuminating. I have a hard time putting these political front groups in a nondescript category that includes disparate but worthy orgnaizations such as the DAR, VFW and Sierra Club, without being a bit more descriptive of the coattails they're riding.

Originally Posted by POC ...

That said, I don't quite understand what your saying here.

I take it that by "they", you're referring to the organizations in question that were applying for recognition by the IRS? So, what do you mean i/r/t your priority #2?
IOW, how would one of those organizations "give" tax exemptions?

Prince

501c4s fall into a murky area where tax deductions (not exemptions - my poor wording here) for donations is allowed but not assumed. The track record is to support all donations as deductable. There was some discussion of this in today's NY Times.

Originally Posted by POC ...

PS: BTW, I believe you meant to say 527 groups, not 529?

Correct. Too late to fix it now, though.

Originally Posted by playwrite

527s are the Superpacs where donors have to be revealed; 501(c)(4)s are referred to as "dark money" because donors do not have to be revealed.

I'm not talking about that, Mr. Playwrite.

Originally Posted by PW

In theory, there is no difference in whether the tax dollar saved by the donor is done under 501 or 529.

You mean 527, correct?

But, what is "tax dollar saved"? The $$$ contributed to the organization
(ie: a 527 or a 501(c)(4) in this example) is after-tax(ie: non-tax deductible).

Do you mean "tax evasion/avoidance"?

Originally Posted by PW

In practice, more and more donor dollars are being pushed through 501 rather than 527 because of it anonymous donor attribute - ...

Ok. One more time. I'm not addressing the anonymity of the donor at this time; Only the tax liability.

Originally Posted by PW

... saved taxes that would not have been pursued under 527 because the donor would be revealed.

The donor pays their required income tax on any 527 or 501(c)(4) contribution.
There is no "tax avoidance"(outside of 'creative accounting').
(Is that what you're getting at: "tax evasion/avoidance" due to possible 'creative accounting'?)

Originally Posted by PW

Moreover, to qualify as a 501(c)(4), organizations have to convince the IRS of their limited political campaign interventions. This results in considerable 'contortions' of the organization's role as presented by highly-paid legal teams and leads to the type of controversy we have seen over the IRS targeting.

Not relevant to the questions I'm asking.

Originally Posted by PW

This was the point M&L was making, and the supplemental information I provided fills in the detail.

That info is superfluous to the questions I'm asking.


Let me try to sum this up. Are you(or you and M&L) making an argument that because donors
to 501(c)(4)s can remain anonymous, they're doing so for "tax evasion/avoidance" purposes?
(FWIW, I'm seriously trying to follow your reasoning, but it seems to me that
you guys are talking about issues concerning the Citizens United ruling.)


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by PW

I'm involved in a couple of 527s and 501s but stay far away from any 501s that have political campaign aspirations for the reasons noted above.

Not on this website, you don't.

<chuckle! >

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The more accurate term is, unfortunately, less illuminating. I have a hard time putting these political front groups in a nondescript category that includes disparate but worthy orgnaizations such as the DAR, VFW and Sierra Club, without being a bit more descriptive of the coattails they're riding.

My point was that I believe a "charitable group" is more in-line with a 501(c)(3), and
the use of "charitable group" i/r/t 501(c)(4)s has proved problematic. That's all.

Originally Posted by M&L

501c4s fall into a murky area where tax deductions (not exemptions - my poor wording here) for donations is allowed but not assumed. The track record is to support all donations as deductable. There was some discussion of this in today's NY Times.

I've not seen that tax "deductions" are allowed i/r/t 501(c)(4)s or 527s.
What I was attempting to get-at is that contributions made to either are made after income is taxed.
(I appreciate you posting the article, but I didn't see anything
there i/r/t 527 or 501(c)(4) contributions being deductible.)


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by M&L

Correct. Too late to fix it now, though.

No sweat. It's seriously not a big deal.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I'm not talking about that, Mr. Playwrite.



You mean 527, correct?

But, what is "tax dollar saved"? The $$$ contributed to the organization
(ie: a 527 or a 501(c)(4) in this example) is after-tax(ie: non-tax deductible).

Do you mean "tax evasion/avoidance"?

501c4's are deductible as a "business expense" not as a "charitable expense" - everything the Koch brothers and other 0.1%ers do is a "business expense" - it's part and parcel to being in the club.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Ok. One more time. I'm not addressing the anonymity of the donor at this time; Only the tax liability.

I understand you wanted to flesh-out a tangent to the real issue; I was just trying to get the discussion back on target - i.e., the anonymity is what is driving the increasing use (abuse) of 501c4, shifting millions of campaign finance money into "dark money, the IRS being the only legal gatekeeper, and that rankling those who prefer that the Nation be in control by those who have the "dark money" wherewithal.

If you want to flesh out more on what is and isn't deductible, maybe start a new thread on that topic? I'm sure it would be fascinating!

Ok. So M&L, here's your initial post to which I responded:

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The answer is simple: they want to pretend to be 501c4 charitable groups so they can hide their donor's names (priority #1) and give tax exemptions (a distant priority #2). They can do everything but those two by being 529 political groups. SCOTUS will even let then spend without end.

Hiding is the whole point. Shouldn't we know who's trying to pervert our political process, regarless of how?

FWIW, I'm seriously only interested in understanding what you mean.

After speaking with Mr. Playwrite, I want to re-state this for my own understanding.
(And, I want you to understand that I'm not attempting to put 'words in your mouth').

So, very generally speaking, you are saying that "[they](ie: organizations that are/were attempting
to gain recognition by the IRS for 501(c)(4)-status) want to pretend to be 501(c)(4) charitable groups
(ie: tax-exempt non-profits) so that their donors can remain anonymous and can attempt to deduct
contributions as a "business expense"... "
(the "pretending" to be 501(c)(4)s is because contributions that may be attempted as a
"business deduction" might be in violation of the IRS and/or the FEC).

Again, very generally speaking, is this kinda what you meant?

But, that still doesn't address the differences between 501(c)(4)s and 527s.
I understand the difference i/r/t donor anonymity, but the tax treatment i/r/t
donors for both is the same. IOW, someone could still attempt to deduct
contributions to a 527 as a "business expense".

So, in this regard, are you saying, again generally speaking, that because of the
donor anonymity aspect of 501(c)(4)s, possible contributions attempted to be made
as a "business expense" would be less likely to be recognized(by the IRS and/or FEC)
as such?

IOW, as Mr. Playwrite was kinda saying, that "dark money" is problematic i/r/t
tax treatment and/or campaign finance rules?


Prince

I hopefully have clarified my understanding of M&L's statement.

Originally Posted by playwrite

501c4's are deductible as a "business expense" not as a "charitable expense" - everything the Koch brothers and other 0.1%ers do is a "business expense" - it's part and parcel to being in the club.

That's what I was referring to i/r/t "creative accounting".
And, I didn't say "charitable expense"; I would use that
in the case of a tax deduction related to a 501(c)(3).
(and one of the reasons I told M&L that he may want
to consider not using the term; It gets in the way).

Originally Posted by PW

I understand you wanted to flesh-out a tangent to the real issue; ...

I was seriously only asking M&L for clarification on his statements for my own understanding.

Originally Posted by PW

... I was just trying to get the discussion back on target - i.e., the anonymity is what is driving the increasing use (abuse) of 501c4, shifting millions of campaign finance money into "dark money, the IRS being the only legal gatekeeper, and that rankling those who prefer that the Nation be in control by those who have the "dark money" wherewithal.

Ok. I don't necessarily agree with that being the discussion, but I'll play:

I'm going to assume here that, in your opinion, "dark money" is a problem.
Now, i/r/t "dark money", what is/are your main concern(s):

1) The anonymity of the donors,
2) The amount able to be contributed,
3) A combination of 1 & 2,
4) Something else(feel free to describe),
5) Some sort of combination of 1, 2, & 4.

For efficiency's sake, I'll add here:

In your opinion, does $$$ have an effect on elections?


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by PW

If you want to flesh out more on what is and isn't deductible, maybe start a new thread on that topic? I'm sure it would be fascinating!

No, I was actually thinking you may want to start a thread titled ... oh, I don't know ... something like:
Reasons why Lois Lerner(et al!) broke/are breaking the law(or something like that! ).

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

...
I'm going to assume here that, in your opinion, "dark money" is a problem.
Now, i/r/t "dark money", what is/are your main concern(s):

1) The anonymity of the donors,
2) The amount able to be contributed,
3) A combination of 1 & 2,
4) Something else(feel free to describe),
5) Some sort of combination of 1, 2, & 4.

For efficiency's sake, I'll add here:

In your opinion, does $$$ have an effect on elections?

"3" - because history/science of propaganda proves that out, and validated by the amount of money (billions) that very smart people pour into it for the effect.

Disclosure is one of few counters to the effect.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

No, I was actually thinking you may want to start a thread titled ... oh, I don't know ... something like:
Reasons why Lois Lerner(et al!) broke/are breaking the law(or something like that! ).

That would fit within the thread and actually with the current direction it was taking starting with Danilynn's question as to why the IRS was targeting in the first place -
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...091#post508091

The answer to that is that it is the IRS job to do so. That raised the question as to why it is the IRS job to so and that was answered by explaining that the 501c4 has a desired attribute of donor anonymity but only if the organization meets certain conditions that the IRS is required to determine if met.

This sets the correct framework on which to decide your question if Lois Lerner did something wrong.

To set that framework even tighter, we also know that less than 1/2 of the targeted organizations were conservative entities and that makes any claim of bias against such organizations groundless - it's basic math (something that JDG has demonstrated to have fundamental problems with on this and many other issues/threads).

What we are left with is did LL purposefully crash her hard drive to prevent disclosure of her e-mails that might show she did something wrong which, by the way, would have nothing to do with the issue of bias against conservative groups because of the basic math.

However, the other more insidious question, less discussed for obvious reasons, is why did Grand Thief Auto Darrell Issa order the IRS IG to ONLY investigate the targeting of conservative groups and continue since the beginning to portray the targeting as being biased against those conservative groups?

The answer goes back to why so much money is spent on political campaigning. In this case, it was the taxpayers paying for Issa's propaganda, but as you can see from JDG's mindless sheeple uptake, it has the same effect.

Capisce?

This is hilarious -

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/07/re...-reagan-decree

Republicans Freak Out Over Reagan Decree That Protects Lois Lerner

Be sure to check out the video clip that catches Grand Thief Auto Issa looking like a deer caught in the headlights. Must of been the same look when he was caught stealing a car back in his Army days.

Too F-in funny!

Read how Issa's was warned months ago -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5600789.html

Having one Party full of morons is really a double edge sword - it can be hilariously funny... until gerrymandering gives them actual power.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/t...rward-24623846

...Judge Susan Dlott allowed two of the tea party groups' claims — including that the IRS discriminated and retaliated against them based on their views in violation of their free speech rights — to survive to trial.

The Cincinnati-based Dlott did dismiss a third claim, ruling the tea party groups could not pursue allegations of privacy violations on behalf of their individual members. The individuals themselves have to do that, she said...

Among the individuals named in the lawsuit is Lois Lerner, who headed the division that processes applications for tax-exempt status during a time when, the IRS has acknowledged, agents improperly scrutinized applications from tea party and other conservative groups...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Republicans Freak Out Over Reagan Decree That Protects Lois Lerner ?...

...so, the progs are giddy because the Obamanation gets to decide whether or not to hamper the investigation of a corrupt IRS official?

Why am I not surprised?


http://online.wsj.com/articles/kim-s...xus-1406244677

One of the big questions out of the IRS targeting scandal is this: How can an agency that engaged in such political misconduct be trusted to implement ObamaCare? This week's Halbig v. Burwell ruling reminded us of the answer. It can't.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Halbig that the administration had illegally provided ObamaCare subsidies in 36 insurance exchanges run by the federal government. Yet it wasn't the "administration" as a whole that issued the lawless subsidy gift. It was the administration acting through its new, favorite enforcer: the IRS.

...Democrats needed those subsidies. The party had assumed that dangling subsidies before the states would induce them to set up exchanges. When dozens instead refused, the White House was faced with the prospect that citizens in 36 states—two-thirds of the country—would be exposed to the full cost of ObamaCare's overpriced insurance...

The White House viewed it as imperative, therefore, that IRS bureaucrats ignore the law's text and come up with a politically helpful rule. The evidence shows that career officials at the IRS did indeed do as Treasury Department and Health and Human Services Department officials told them. This, despite the fact that the IRS is supposed to be insulated from political meddling...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Why was the only groups denied exemptions only Progressive groups???...

1) All the evidence shows that the IRS deliberately targeted the Obamanation's opponents.

2) PW somehow turns the fact that the only group that the IRS could rationally claim was actually violating the law into a rationalization for the persecution of conservative/libertarian groups?

3) Is PW sincerely missing the point? The IRS wasn't trying to deny approval outright; the point was to hold conservative groups permanently in limbo.

Anyway, most progressive groups passed easily, despite their lack of merit. An example:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/ir...thers-charity/

Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the center of the decision to target tea party groups for burdensome tax scrutiny, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a shady charity headed by the president’s half-brother that operated illegally for years...

...The National Legal and Policy Center filed an official complaint with the IRS in May 2011 asking why the foundation was being allowed to solicit tax-deductible contributions when it had not even applied for an IRS determination... Nevertheless, a month later, the Barack H. Obama Foundation had flown through the grueling application process. Lerner granted the organization a 501(c) determination and even gave it a retroactive tax exemption dating back to December 2008...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... Shouldn't we know who's trying to pervert our political process, regarless of how?...

...like the above?

The place to look for those "perverting the political process" would be those who got caught using the power of the government to harass the president's opponents, obstructed justice to cover their tracks, and now hope pray that the executive branch looks the other way (which they might).

Obviously, PW and Mr. Horn don't have easy explanations for the "coincidence" of the missing emails. Neither does the Obamanation. The investigation will be interesting. It's already uncovering interesting facts:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-ex...rticle/2551162

...investigators have had a chance to talk to the technical experts inside the IRS who actually examined Lerner's computer, and the experts say the hard drive in question was actually just "scratched," and that most of the data on it was recoverable.

The IRS computer experts also told the committee that they had recommended seeking outside help in recovering the data from Lerner's computer — something IRS management declined to do...

...the committee says it has come across evidence that, at least for some period of time, Lerner's computer was listed as "recovered" in an internal IRS IT tracking document. The committee says IRS experts were not able to say whether "recovered" meant that the hard drive had actually been saved or whether it had met some other fate...


...yeah. Coincidence.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/t...rward-24623846

...Judge Susan Dlott allowed two of the tea party groups' claims — including that the IRS discriminated and retaliated against them based on their views in violation of their free speech rights — to survive to trial.

The Cincinnati-based Dlott did dismiss a third claim, ruling the tea party groups could not pursue allegations of privacy violations on behalf of their individual members. The individuals themselves have to do that, she said...

Among the individuals named in the lawsuit is Lois Lerner, who headed the division that processes applications for tax-exempt status during a time when, the IRS has acknowledged, agents improperly scrutinized applications from tea party and other conservative groups...

- this ruling is only that the plantiffs have "standing," i.e. that they could be a party that was harmed. It says nothing about whether there was harm or whether there was anything illegal or wrong. Progressive parties that were also targeted could have standing just as well.

Let's see if we can put this in terms you might understand -

Let's say that rather than stealing cars, Darrell Grand-Thief-Auto Issa was involved in insurance scams. He causes his car to be rammed in the back and fakes a neck injury. First step is a judge has determine if he has "standing" in his scam's lawsuit - is it possible he could be an injured party. The judge will likely find that he does have "standing," but once the case actually gets underway, it becomes clear that Issa is running a scam and the suit is dismissed. Pretty much what is going to happen on these scams he and the baggers are trying to run now with the IRS.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...so, the progs are giddy because the Obamanation gets to decide whether or not to hamper the investigation of a corrupt IRS official?

Why am I not surprised?

We're giddy because once again, even with their own crafted witch hunt, the baggers show themselves to be completely incompetent.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

77[/URL][B][COLOR=#ac193d]One of the big questions

No, the big question is why did Issa limit the IG's review to the minority of conservatives groups and then cover up that the majority of groups were not conservative ones?

The easy question to answer is why do hypocritical baggers like you let him get away with that?

- That one is easy - you're mindless sheeple.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

[B][COLOR=#ac193d]The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

And you once again fail to mention it was a 2-1 decision with the "2" being Bush holdover appointed baggers and that one-hour later the 4th District had the exact opposite judgement, 3-0.

Also, we'll archive this and see how much you want to stand on the District's decision as being what determines legality when the full 10-justice panel makes its final ruling. I think we'll all get a good laugh out of that - well, except for you of course.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

[SIZE=3]1) All the evidence shows that the IRS deliberately targeted the Obamanation's opponents.

2) PW somehow turns the fact that the only group that the IRS could rationally claim was actually violating the law into a rationalization for the persecution of conservative/libertarian groups?

Outright lies. Of the nearly 200 political groups targeted for greater scrutiny of THEIR request for tax exemptions, less than half were conservative groups. Simple math makes you simply a liar. Simple math is pretty consistent and that makes you a repetitive liar.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

3) Is PW sincerely missing the point? The IRS wasn't trying to deny approval outright; the point was to hold conservative groups permanently in limbo.

There's no evidence that the minority conservative groups were held up any longer that the majority non-conservative groups. What we do know is it was only a Progressive group that was denied the requested exemption.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Anyway, most progressive groups passed easily, despite their lack of merit. An example:

And ALL of the minority conservative groups passed just as easily as the Progressive groups that did.

You really should try to sell your whoring to either get on Faux News or become an Issa staffer. You're actually not too bad at being a Koch suck up, or something along those lines.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

....caught using the power of the government to harass the president's opponents,

It all falls apart Jimmie with the simple math that the conservative groups targeted were in the minority and the only group denied was a Progressive group. That's what your entire house of cards is build on. It is why Grand-Theif-Auto Issa has tried so hard to cover that up.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

..interesting facts...

There not facts, Jimmie, they're misinformation. And they're only interesting to the mindless Koch suckers that actual read the Examiner and believe they are reading facts when they certainly are not.

For the rest of the world, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I see that facts have overtaken PW's narrative.

Shocking.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-cong...obe-1431645154

...a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Information confirmed what hundreds of tea party, conservative, pro-life and pro-Israel organizations had long known: The Internal Revenue Service had stopped processing their applications for exempt status and subjected them to onerous, intrusive and discriminatory practices because of their political views.
Since the report, additional congressional investigations have revealed a lot about IRS dysfunction—and worse. But they’ve also revealed Congress’s inability to exercise its constitutional oversight responsibilities of this and other executive agencies.

...Mr. Shulman told the Ways and Means Committee in March 2012 that there was no targeting of conservative groups...

...Ms. Lerner denied there were any changes in the criteria for evaluating applications for exempt status...

Ms. Lerner also told Congress that “nothing had changed” about the way her unit handled such applications...

...Mr. Miller testified before Congress on at least six occasions... He withheld information from Congress each time about the targeting...

...John Koskinen has testified repeatedly... after the IRS informed the Senate Finance Committee of the “missing Lois Lerner emails,” he told the Ways and Means Committee of the yeoman, but unsuccessful, efforts by various people within the agency to recover the Lerner emails... All the while the emails were sitting on an off-site server in West Virginia. And Timothy Camus, the deputy inspector general for tax information, testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee earlier this year that the IRS does save and store all IRS employees’ emails.

Lying to Congress is a felony. But the Obama Justice Department has not lifted a finger to prosecute anyone responsible for the IRS scandal, including top brass who repeatedly gave false testimony to Congress.

Neither has Congress done much about being lied to by the IRS...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

... Lying to Congress is a felony. But the Obama Justice Department has not lifted a finger to prosecute anyone responsible for the IRS scandal, including top brass who repeatedly gave false testimony to Congress.

Neither has Congress done much about being lied to by the IRS...

If lying is prosecutable, then the entire GWB foreign policy team should be prosecuted for lying us into a major war that cost thousands of American lives, 10s to 100s of thousands of Iraqi lives and $2Trillion and counting. In comparison, a few missing emails related to a backwater IRS "scandal" are minor to the point of irrelevance.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If lying is prosecutable, then the entire GWB foreign policy team should be prosecuted for lying...

-Nonsense. Give it up. The Bush Administartion did not lie about WMD or anything else. Every other intelligence agnecy agreed that Iraq retained a WMD capability. This was because the Ba'athist regime went to a lot of effort to convince the world that they did.

So, Pbbt!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Nonsense. Give it up. The Bush Administration did not lie about WMD or anything else. Every other intelligence agnecy agreed that Iraq retained a WMD capability. This was because the Ba'athist regime went to a lot of effort to convince the world that they did.

So, Pbbt!

So you can argue with the intelligence hidden from view, but that's now been overturned by evidence to the contrary. Michael Morell, former deputy director and acting director of the CIA, stated that the intelligence used to justify the war was "misrepresented" by both Bush and Cheney. It was a public statement on MSNBC. More here at Mother Jones.

We knew this was the case based on the other actors, primarily the IAEA inspection team that found absolutely nothing of concern. Having it confirmed by the man who briefed the President seals the deal.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So you can argue with the intelligence hidden from view, but that's now been overturned by evidence to the contrary. Michael Morell...

-Uh, Morrell's claims are overturned by the simple fact that other intelligence services over whom Bushitler had no effect (e.g., the French) agreed that Iraq had WMD.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Uh, Morrell's claims are overturned by the simple fact that other intelligence services over whom Bushitler had no effect (e.g., the French) agreed that Iraq had WMD.

... which I'm sure you can document. Everyone knew they had some chemical weapons and bio-weapons were a possibility, though none of those were found either. The implication was always nukes! No one thought the Iraqis had those.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... which I'm sure you can document...

...and while we're at it:

http://hoax.trendolizer.com/2015/05/...breitbart.html

Former CIA Director Michael Morell’s account of what happened during the September 2012 terror attack against a U.S. consulate in Benghazi has been debunked by a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, a security contractor, and other sources...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If lying is prosecutable, then the entire GWB foreign policy team should be prosecuted for lying...

...BTW, I notice you didn't address the real point about the IRS...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

I see that facts have overtaken PW's narrative.

Shocking.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-cong...obe-1431645154

...a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Information confirmed what hundreds of tea party, conservative, pro-life and pro-Israel organizations had long known: The Internal Revenue Service had stopped processing their applications for exempt status and subjected them to onerous, intrusive and discriminatory practices because of their political views.
Since the report, additional congressional investigations have revealed a lot about IRS dysfunction—and worse. But they’ve also revealed Congress’s inability to exercise its constitutional oversight responsibilities of this and other executive agencies.

...Mr. Shulman told the Ways and Means Committee in March 2012 that there was no targeting of conservative groups...

...Ms. Lerner denied there were any changes in the criteria for evaluating applications for exempt status...

Ms. Lerner also told Congress that “nothing had changed” about the way her unit handled such applications...

...Mr. Miller testified before Congress on at least six occasions... He withheld information from Congress each time about the targeting...

...John Koskinen has testified repeatedly... after the IRS informed the Senate Finance Committee of the “missing Lois Lerner emails,” he told the Ways and Means Committee of the yeoman, but unsuccessful, efforts by various people within the agency to recover the Lerner emails... All the while the emails were sitting on an off-site server in West Virginia. And Timothy Camus, the deputy inspector general for tax information, testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee earlier this year that the IRS does save and store all IRS employees’ emails.

Lying to Congress is a felony. But the Obama Justice Department has not lifted a finger to prosecute anyone responsible for the IRS scandal, including top brass who repeatedly gave false testimony to Congress.

Neither has Congress done much about being lied to by the IRS...

Note that nothing is here about Progressive groups also being screened. That would require balanced thinking that comes from the cerebral lobes. Unfortunately, in the amygdala-dominated, cerebral lobes are overridden.

And the amygdala is now left to run wild with evil conspiracies to hid e-mails. Yawn.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...and while we're at it:

http://hoax.trendolizer.com/2015/05/...breitbart.html

Former CIA Director Michael Morell’s account of what happened during the September 2012 terror attack against a U.S. consulate in Benghazi has been debunked by a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, a security contractor, and other sources...

Should I be surprised that the ass-covering would begin immediately? Of course it would. In fact, Morell didn't really wan to say as much as he did either ... but he did.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...BTW, I notice you didn't address the real point about the IRS...

There is no real point, The IRS should have disallowed every one of the questionable 501.C.4s out of hand, assuming it could do that. That it used a sorting algorithm that picked more conservative groups than liberal ones is not surprising either. There were far more of them to pick. All you have to whine about is the terminology used to do the sort, and some of the terms used were obviously intended to catch liberal abusers as well as conservatives.

In short, no fault or foul. 501.C.4 is not intended to be a vehicle for hiding political advocacy from public view. Distorting it for that purpose may be legal, but its not even slightly moral or ethical. <SNARK> Isn't the GOP supposed to be the Morality Party? </SNARK>

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Note that nothing is here about Progressive groups also being screened...

-PW hasn't been paying attention.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-cong...obe-1431645154

...a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Information confirmed what hundreds of tea party, conservative, pro-life and pro-Israel organizations had long known: The Internal Revenue Service had stopped processing their applications for exempt status and subjected them to onerous, intrusive and discriminatory practices because of their political views...

...Righties were harrased, delayed, had their private information made public, and were made to jump through illegal hoops to jack up the expense of compliance and to hinder their effectiveness. Lefties were not. They were briefly screened, and given an up or down. This was a clear case of the IRS abusing their power for political purposes.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...The IRS should have disallowed every one of the questionable 501.C.4s out of hand...

-Uh, the point that you and PW seem to continuously miss is, that's NOT what happened. Otherwise, stuff like this:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/ir...thers-charity/

Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the center of the decision to target tea party groups for burdensome tax scrutiny, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a shady charity headed by the president’s half-brother that operated illegally for years...

...wouldn't have passed muster. The investigations of Righties were NOT designed to see whether an organization fit the standard, but to harass them, run up their bills, and harvest them for intelligence. That is ILLEGAL, and I'm sure that even you would agree that government bureaucrats who abuse their power for partisan purposes should punished. To avoid scrutiny, many have lied. That is an additional reason they should be punished. If you think that should be excused, then you're going to have to make a very intersting argument.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Should I be surprised that the ass-covering would begin immediately?

-The upshot is, "Bush Lied, People Died" is shot full of holes (again); it never made any sense anyway.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-PW hasn't been paying attention.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-cong...obe-1431645154

...a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Information confirmed what hundreds of tea party, conservative, pro-life and pro-Israel organizations had long known: The Internal Revenue Service had stopped processing their applications for exempt status and subjected them to onerous, intrusive and discriminatory practices because of their political views...

...Righties were harrased, delayed, had their private information made public, and were made to jump through illegal hoops to jack up the expense of compliance and to hinder their effectiveness. Lefties were not. They were briefly screened, and given an up or down. This was a clear case of the IRS abusing their power for political purposes.



-Uh, the point that you and PW seem to continuously miss is, that's NOT what happened. Otherwise, stuff like this:



...wouldn't have passed muster. The investigations of Righties were NOT designed to see whether an organization fit the standard, but to harass them, run up their bills, and harvest them for intelligence. That is ILLEGAL, and I'm sure that even you would agree that government bureaucrats who abuse their power for partisan purposes should punished. To avoid scrutiny, many have lied. That is an additional reason they should be punished. If you think that should be excused, then you're going to have to make a very intersting argument.



-The upshot is, "Bush Lied, People Died" is shot full of holes (again); it never made any sense anyway.

For those interested in the phenomenon, this post by our Glick is very illustrious of amygdala-dominated 'thinking.'

First, looking upstream, one can find numerous times where Glick has been presented with the two facts that completely refute his assertion that the baggers were somehow more targeted. First, the number of non-bagger groups targeted exceeded the number of bagger groups. Second, the IG was specifically requested by Chairman Grand-Thief-Auto Darrel Issa to constrain their review to only t-bagger groups.

Anyone with cerebral lobes not being overridden by their more primitive amygdala 'thinking' could easily conclude the truth of the entire matter being a politically-motivated witch hunt.

The amydala domination in Glick is further confirmed by the over-the-top "..harass them, run up their bills, and harvest them for intelligence..." Really scary, ey? And absolutely indicative of the fight-or-flight response of someone whose cerebral lobes are being short-circuited by their dominating amygdala.

All these years, pretty smart people have provided Glick with facts and logic ad nauseum without a hint that he's taken any of it and applied his cerebral lobes. Instead, he returns over and over again to his primative amygdala belief system.

Bottom line, folks - you can't successfully reason with the amygdala dominated; they're just waiting for you to eventually give us - they actually believe that proves their false belief system as the truth.

You can't reason with it; you can't compromise with it. To be bipartisan with them is to be bipartisan with insanity.

All we can do is try to accelerate their demise in having any actual influence on our lives.

Why should political activity be tax-exempt? Isn't tax exemption a subsidy?

Oh, 'educating' people to vote a certain way isn't likely to teach anyone how to read, do math, write coherently, create cultural worth, or expand knowledge, is it?

The transformation of taxable income into a 'charity' that exists as an agency of the hostile takeover of the democratic political system is unconscionable.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... First, looking upstream, one can find numerous times where Glick has been presented with the two facts that completely refute his assertion that the baggers were somehow more targeted...

-Again, PW is overlooking the fact that Tea Partiers et al were the ones who were harassed when they were targeted, not lefty groups, who got the kid glove treatment.

Originally Posted by playwrite

For those interested in the phenomenon, this post by our Glick is very illustrious of amygdala-dominated 'thinking.'...

-I see that since Eric has apparently taken up the word "sheeple" that PW has had to use a new word of the month, "amygdala."

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Why should political activity be tax-exempt? Isn't tax exemption a subsidy?.

-Lefty groups got it. Righty groups got harrased indefinitely. It's suppsed to be "what's good for the goose..."

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

... 'educating' people to vote a certain way isn't likely to teach anyone how to read, do math, write coherently, create cultural worth, or expand knowledge, is it?...

-I think the groups you're talking about are ones that taught about the US Constitution. Most Americans do NOT know the USC very well.