Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Who was on the receiving end of those emails? Did their hard drives crash, too?
What government official actually has their emails stored on the hard drive of THEIR networked office computer? If that were the case, Petraeus' affair wouldn't have been revealed.
Why is it a scandal to make sure the 501's were legitimate? Do you know how many Tea Party 501's there were before President Obama's election? The number grew to over 700 by 2010. It's the IRS job to make sure they were all legit.
After 9/11, the IRS, along with the FBI, CIA, etc investigated Islamic non-profits to check connection/funding of terrorist groups. After natural disasters like Katrina, there's always an increase of bogus "non-profit charities". The same goes for "war veterans" bogus charities. So yes, I think the IRS was just doing its job in investigating the legitimacy of these groups after the dramatic increase in their numbers
Why is it a scandal to make sure the 501's were legitimate? Do you know how many Tea Party 501's there were before President Obama's election? The number grew to over 700 by 2010. It's the IRS job to make sure they were all legit.
After 9/11, the IRS, along with the FBI, CIA, etc investigated Islamic non-profits to check connection/funding of terrorist groups. After natural disasters like Katrina, there's always an increase of bogus "non-profit charities". The same goes for "war veterans" bogus charities. So yes, I think the IRS was just doing its job in investigating the legitimacy of these groups after the dramatic increase in their numbers
The IRS failed to remain apolitical, papadee. Its illegitimate, partisan scrutiny of groups it perceived to be "conservative" was more universal and protracted than any scrutiny it gave to other groups.
BTW, papadee, do you or can you sign into your office (or personal) email account from both your place of business and your home using two different computers (or other device(s))?
The IRS failed to remain apolitical, papadee. Its illegitimate, partisan scrutiny of groups it perceived to be "conservative" was more universal and protracted than any scrutiny it gave to other groups....
So the IRS's scrutiny of Islamic groups after 9/11 wasn't legitimate, it was religious partisanship?
The scrutiny was "universal & protracted" because most, if not all of the groups sprung up literally overnight. Find out how many TP groups there were before 2009 & compare that to today. If that type of exponential growth shouldn't raise a flag to possible fraud or misuse of 501c4 status, and therefore more scrutiny, then the IRS weren't doing their job.
So the IRS's scrutiny of Islamic groups after 9/11 wasn't legitimate, it was religious partisanship?
The scrutiny was "universal & protracted" because most, if not all of the groups sprung up literally overnight. Find out how many TP groups there were before 2009 & compare that to today. If that type of exponential growth shouldn't raise a flag to possible fraud or misuse of 501c4 status, and therefore more scrutiny, then the IRS weren't doing their job.
First off, papadee, you significantly didn't answer -- or even acknowledge -- the question: "Do you or can you sign into your office (or personal) email account from both your place of business and your home using two different computers (or other device(s))?"
Second point, papadee, if these organizations were so obviously 'illegitimate', why is it that their applications weren't examined and denied out of hand? Why is it these applications were put into the bureaucratic mill and passed around for two or three years while liberal organizations were cleared in just a few months, papadee? That doesn't sound like 'efficiency', papadee. That sounds like deceitful obfuscation and purposeful procrastination, papadee. Also, why is it the IRS didn't demand the same documentation from liberal organizations that it did those it perceived to be conservative, papadee? Isn't that unequal treatment before the law, papadee? Isn't unequal treatment before the law in fact "illegal", papadee?
Will you now answer the question or continue, by your silence, to recognize that the IRS' excuse that "her computer broke" is bogus BS from the IRS and the Odumbo administration which are engaged in a cover-up to hide their illegal activities, papadee?
First off, papadee, you significantly didn't answer -- or even acknowledge -- the question: "Do you or can you sign into your office (or personal) email account from both your place of business and your home using two different computers (or other device(s))?"
Second point, papadee, if these organizations were so obviously 'illegitimate', why is it that their applications weren't examined and denied out of hand? Why is it these applications were put into the bureaucratic mill and passed around for two or three years while liberal organizations were cleared in just a few months, papadee? That doesn't sound like 'efficiency', papadee. That sounds like deceitful obfuscation and purposeful procrastination, papadee. Also, why is it the IRS didn't demand the same documentation from liberal organizations that it did those it perceived to be conservative, papadee? Isn't that unequal treatment before the law, papadee? Isn't unequal treatment before the law in fact "illegal", papadee?
Will you now answer the question or continue, by your silence, to recognize that the IRS' excuse that "her computer broke" is bogus BS from the IRS and the Odumbo administration which are engaged in a cover-up to hide their illegal activities, papadee?
Rude, argumentative, uninformed and brusque. How many times do you have to use someone's handle in a post (you said "papadee" eight fucking times in that post) before you start acting condescending (which coming from you is fucking hilarious)?
No wonder you're such a frustrated little closet queen!
Second point, papadee, if these organizations were so obviously 'illegitimate', why is it that their applications weren't examined and denied out of hand? Why is it these applications were put into the bureaucratic mill and passed around for two or three years while liberal organizations were cleared in just a few months, papadee? That doesn't sound like 'efficiency', papadee. That sounds like deceitful obfuscation and purposeful procrastination, papadee. Also, why is it the IRS didn't demand the same documentation from liberal organizations that it did those it perceived to be conservative, papadee? Isn't that unequal treatment before the law, papadee? Isn't unequal treatment before the law in fact "illegal", papadee?
Here's another point, papadee -
If the problem was too many tea party groups applying all at once, the IRS should have assigned more staff to the problem. Don't give us some bullshit story about how the IRS needed to stop potential fraud or abuse. Just apply the SAME STANDARDS to new applications as you did BEFORE the tea parties came flooding in. They either qualify or they don't. Either way, they deserve a timely response, not a deliberate drip drip drip request for more info more info more info dragging on for 3 years until the next election is over and the damage is done because all the potential donors and volunteers gave up and moved on...
P.S. You're not really naive enough to believe there was no targeting, are you?
First off, papadee, you significantly didn't answer -- or even acknowledge -- the question: "Do you or can you sign into your office (or personal) email account from both your place of business and your home using two different computers (or other device(s))?"
Second point, papadee, if these organizations were so obviously 'illegitimate', why is it that their applications weren't examined and denied out of hand? Why is it these applications were put into the bureaucratic mill and passed around for two or three years while liberal organizations were cleared in just a few months, papadee? That doesn't sound like 'efficiency', papadee. That sounds like deceitful obfuscation and purposeful procrastination, papadee. Also, why is it the IRS didn't demand the same documentation from liberal organizations that it did those it perceived to be conservative, papadee? Isn't that unequal treatment before the law, papadee? Isn't unequal treatment before the law in fact "illegal", papadee?
Will you now answer the question or continue, by your silence, to recognize that the IRS' excuse that "her computer broke" is bogus BS from the IRS and the Odumbo administration which are engaged in a cover-up to hide their illegal activities, papadee?
1st point - I ignored that question because it doesn't pertain to the issue of why the IRS targeted these groups. I didn't comment on this subject to talk about the "cover-up/scandal". I just wanted to give my opinion on why these groups were "targeted".
2nd Point - I never said they were illegitimate. I said because there was an increase in applications, they were singled out to make sure they were legitimate. Guess what? Most of them were. Just because the approval was delayed, doesn't mean conspiracy. And actually some of the first TP applicants were cleared in a few months. But when the IRS saw the applications snowballing, yes, they put them on a slower track for a more thorough look.
3rd Point - Government efficient? You & I both know that's not happening. So why bring it up?
4th Point - Is unequal treatment before the law illegal? Honestly, I don't know. But I do know that people have been treated unequally under the law for over 200 years here and it hasn't stopped yet. Laws have been passed to treat people unequally, Presidents have signed the laws, and the SC has upheld those laws, so having one more example of unfair treatment is just, well, one more example. Does it hurt more because a cause you care about was affected by unfair treatment?
And no, I will not answer your question about the email.
