How did that jerk that was stalking Lois Lerner on private property get away with doing that?!! Have

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, for one thing, liberal groups were approved. How is that equal application of the law?

Liberal groups were denied.

The utter refusal of conservatives on this board to answer the question "do tea party groups meet the legal definition of a 501 c 4" is the ultimate proof on this subject. None of you can say that they meet the standard. None.

Now I will go away and check 538 to see how Tea Party Candidates are faring in 2014.

READ MY POST AT 9:41. HOW DOES THIS ORGANIZATION NOT MEET THE LEGAL DEFINITION??????
And, BTW - change your posting to “liberal group” (singular) denied. And, this is why - they are clearly helping DEMOCRATS!!!
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

I don’t believe you really have the knowledge and background to continue posting, so I am glad you are going away.

I will for a moment ignore the fact that you did not actually articulate an answer to the question. And I will say that the answer to why True the Vote may not qualify is that it does not defend the interests of voters on all sides of the political spectrum.

Source and proof for this statement.

I have yet to find an example on their web site of voter fraud on behalf of conservative candidates. I did find out that they were formed as an offshoot of the King Street Patriots.

Can you find examples of where they identified conservative voter fraud? Do half of their poll watchers operate in solidly conservative voting precincts?

[Anonymous]

Because she did not own the houses she went to, including mine and I had no problem with that crew asking her where those emails went. Other that that they were on a public street.

[Anonymous]

The utter refusal of conservatives on this board to answer the question "do tea party groups meet the legal definition of a 501 c 4" is the ultimate proof on this subject. None of you can say that they meet the standard. None.

I do not know the mission of the “conservative” organizations, so I don’t know if they should qualify or not. That is the job of the IRS. But, they did not do their job. These “conservative” groups were put in limbo. They were not approved or disapproved. And, there may be some that still have not been given approval (I did not check on this statement). So, without the approval or disapproval, they could not operate as a 501c4 nor could they protest a non approval.
Tell us about the liberal groups that were put in limbo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, for one thing, liberal groups were approved. How is that equal application of the law?

Liberal groups were denied.

The utter refusal of conservatives on this board to answer the question "do tea party groups meet the legal definition of a 501 c 4" is the ultimate proof on this subject. None of you can say that they meet the standard. None.

Now I will go away and check 538 to see how Tea Party Candidates are faring in 2014.

READ MY POST AT 9:41. HOW DOES THIS ORGANIZATION NOT MEET THE LEGAL DEFINITION??????
And, BTW - change your posting to “liberal group” (singular) denied. And, this is why - they are clearly helping DEMOCRATS!!!
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

I don’t believe you really have the knowledge and background to continue posting, so I am glad you are going away.

I will for a moment ignore the fact that you did not actually articulate an answer to the question. And I will say that the answer to why True the Vote may not qualify is that it does not defend the interests of voters on all sides of the political spectrum.

Source and proof for this statement.

I have yet to find an example on their web site of voter fraud on behalf of conservative candidates. I did find out that they were formed as an offshoot of the King Street Patriots.

Can you find examples of where they identified conservative voter fraud? Do half of their poll watchers operate in solidly conservative voting precincts?

You tell us. You made the claim, now it is up to you to prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, for one thing, liberal groups were approved. How is that equal application of the law?

Liberal groups were denied.

The utter refusal of conservatives on this board to answer the question "do tea party groups meet the legal definition of a 501 c 4" is the ultimate proof on this subject. None of you can say that they meet the standard. None.

Now I will go away and check 538 to see how Tea Party Candidates are faring in 2014.

READ MY POST AT 9:41. HOW DOES THIS ORGANIZATION NOT MEET THE LEGAL DEFINITION??????
And, BTW - change your posting to “liberal group” (singular) denied. And, this is why - they are clearly helping DEMOCRATS!!!
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

I don’t believe you really have the knowledge and background to continue posting, so I am glad you are going away.

I will for a moment ignore the fact that you did not actually articulate an answer to the question. And I will say that the answer to why True the Vote may not qualify is that it does not defend the interests of voters on all sides of the political spectrum.

Source and proof for this statement.

I have yet to find an example on their web site of voter fraud on behalf of conservative candidates. I did find out that they were formed as an offshoot of the King Street Patriots.

Can you find examples of where they identified conservative voter fraud? Do half of their poll watchers operate in solidly conservative voting precincts?

You tell us. You made the claim, now it is up to you to prove it.

There are no examples of True the Vote identifying conservative voter fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The utter refusal of conservatives on this board to answer the question "do tea party groups meet the legal definition of a 501 c 4" is the ultimate proof on this subject. None of you can say that they meet the standard. None.

I do not know the mission of the “conservative” organizations, so I don’t know if they should qualify or not. That is the job of the IRS. But, they did not do their job. These “conservative” groups were put in limbo. They were not approved or disapproved. And, there may be some that still have not been given approval (I did not check on this statement). So, without the approval or disapproval, they could not operate as a 501c4 nor could they protest a non approval.
Tell us about the liberal groups that were put in limbo.

You mean like Progress Texas? https://www.scribd.com/doc/141747252/IRS-Request-for-More-Information-Progress-Texas-Feb-2012

Any of those Tea Party groups could have filed as 527s and received tax exempt status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The utter refusal of conservatives on this board to answer the question "do tea party groups meet the legal definition of a 501 c 4" is the ultimate proof on this subject. None of you can say that they meet the standard. None.

I do not know the mission of the “conservative” organizations, so I don’t know if they should qualify or not. That is the job of the IRS. But, they did not do their job. These “conservative” groups were put in limbo. They were not approved or disapproved. And, there may be some that still have not been given approval (I did not check on this statement). So, without the approval or disapproval, they could not operate as a 501c4 nor could they protest a non approval.
Tell us about the liberal groups that were put in limbo.

You mean like Progress Texas? https://www.scribd.com/doc/141747252/IRS-Request-for-More-Information-Progress-Texas-Feb-2012

Any of those Tea Party groups could have filed as 527s and received tax exempt status.

Do you know when Progress Texas applied and how long before they were approved? From what I read, it took about a year - not the 3+ years that other groups were put in limbo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The utter refusal of conservatives on this board to answer the question "do tea party groups meet the legal definition of a 501 c 4" is the ultimate proof on this subject. None of you can say that they meet the standard. None.

I do not know the mission of the “conservative” organizations, so I don’t know if they should qualify or not. That is the job of the IRS. But, they did not do their job. These “conservative” groups were put in limbo. They were not approved or disapproved. And, there may be some that still have not been given approval (I did not check on this statement). So, without the approval or disapproval, they could not operate as a 501c4 nor could they protest a non approval.
Tell us about the liberal groups that were put in limbo.

You mean like Progress Texas? https://www.scribd.com/doc/141747252/IRS-Request-for-More-Information-Progress-Texas-Feb-2012

Any of those Tea Party groups could have filed as 527s and received tax exempt status.

Do you know when Progress Texas applied and how long before they were approved? From what I read, it took about a year - not the 3+ years that other groups were put in limbo.

479 days. But then again, they promptly answered two rounds of additional questions. Check out the followup list: https://www.scribd.com/doc/141747252/IRS-Request-for-More-Information-Progress-Texas-Feb-2012

It is no more invasive than the tea party groups got.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The utter refusal of conservatives on this board to answer the question "do tea party groups meet the legal definition of a 501 c 4" is the ultimate proof on this subject. None of you can say that they meet the standard. None.

I do not know the mission of the “conservative” organizations, so I don’t know if they should qualify or not. That is the job of the IRS. But, they did not do their job. These “conservative” groups were put in limbo. They were not approved or disapproved. And, there may be some that still have not been given approval (I did not check on this statement). So, without the approval or disapproval, they could not operate as a 501c4 nor could they protest a non approval.
Tell us about the liberal groups that were put in limbo.

You mean like Progress Texas? https://www.scribd.com/doc/141747252/IRS-Request-for-More-Information-Progress-Texas-Feb-2012

Any of those Tea Party groups could have filed as 527s and received tax exempt status.

Do you know when Progress Texas applied and how long before they were approved? From what I read, it took about a year - not the 3+ years that other groups were put in limbo.

479 days. But then again, they promptly answered two rounds of additional questions. Check out the followup list: https://www.scribd.com/doc/141747252/IRS-Request-for-More-Information-Progress-Texas-Feb-2012

It is no more invasive than the tea party groups got.

I doubt Catherine Engelbrecht would agree. Was the found of this group visited by the ATF, EPA and other agencies? Was the founder audited - both business and personal? So, they waited just over a year. Boo Hoo. Others waited in excess of 3 years. Not even comparable.

[Anonymous]

I see, we are just going to keep going on with the battle of the anecdotes and who had it worse. And I'll have to hear how rejecting a progressive group was somehow doing it a favor. And you'll have to hear about how Engelbrecht ran King Street Patriots and was coordinating messaging with Breitbart and other conservative media outlets through Groundswell. And you'll deny it and so you think you will earn a standoff.

Meanwhile, the elephant in the room has stomped flat everything in sight. The Tea Party meets any reasonable definition of a political organization. And political organizations aren't qualified to be 501 c 4's.

[Anonymous]

^^ The true elephant in the room has yet to be uncovered. WHO was behind the monitoring of conservative groups? Was Lois Lerner taking orders, and if so, from whom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ The true elephant in the room has yet to be uncovered. WHO was behind the monitoring of conservative groups? Was Lois Lerner taking orders, and if so, from whom?

Yet another response which fails to address the issue of whether Tea Party groups actually meet the legal requirements for 501 c 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ The true elephant in the room has yet to be uncovered. WHO was behind the monitoring of conservative groups? Was Lois Lerner taking orders, and if so, from whom?

Yet another response which fails to address the issue of whether Tea Party groups actually meet the legal requirements for 501 c 4.

I do not know the mission of the “conservative” organizations, so I don’t know if they should qualify or not. That is the job of the IRS. But, they did not do their job. These “conservative” groups were put in limbo. They were not approved or disapproved. And, there may be some that still have not been given approval (I did not check on this statement). So, without the approval or disapproval, they could not operate as a 501c4 nor could they protest a non approval.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ The true elephant in the room has yet to be uncovered. WHO was behind the monitoring of conservative groups? Was Lois Lerner taking orders, and if so, from whom?

Yet another response which fails to address the issue of whether Tea Party groups actually meet the legal requirements for 501 c 4.

I do not know the mission of the “conservative” organizations, so I don’t know if they should qualify or not. That is the job of the IRS. But, they did not do their job. These “conservative” groups were put in limbo. They were not approved or disapproved. And, there may be some that still have not been given approval (I did not check on this statement). So, without the approval or disapproval, they could not operate as a 501c4 nor could they protest a non approval.

If you do not know the mission of tea party groups, you are a moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ The true elephant in the room has yet to be uncovered. WHO was behind the monitoring of conservative groups? Was Lois Lerner taking orders, and if so, from whom?

Yet another response which fails to address the issue of whether Tea Party groups actually meet the legal requirements for 501 c 4.

I do not know the mission of the “conservative” organizations, so I don’t know if they should qualify or not. That is the job of the IRS. But, they did not do their job. These “conservative” groups were put in limbo. They were not approved or disapproved. And, there may be some that still have not been given approval (I did not check on this statement). So, without the approval or disapproval, they could not operate as a 501c4 nor could they protest a non approval.

If you do not know the mission of tea party groups, you are a moron.

And, you are the moron for believing that all the groups that were scrutinized and harassed by the IRS are “tea party” groups. Keep believing your lying leaders.