Where were the Republicans in 2004, when the NAACP was audited?

[squeeze berry]

Except the tax exempt status points out they are NOT suppose to be "influencing" elections.

Anywhoo..



It's funny that Bush made a speech drawing lines in terms of people that supported his effort to make war and people that didn't.

He said, either you are with us..or against us.

Then, anyone who criticized or questioned this stance got into deep trouble.

Shinseki questioned the strategy? Forced out.
NAACP criticized the war? 2 year audit.
Rangel suggests that the draft be reinstated? Audit and embarrassed.
Several churches speak out against the war? Audits.

Where were you guys back then?

They were behind it, that is where they were.

Absolutely.

Back then? This behavior was a good thing.

Now it's bad.

What's changed?

Bush did not consider the NAACP to be his political enemies.

" would no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

 

[Darkwind]

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

After their president chairman Bush?

USATODAY.com - NAACP in hot water over speech

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the tax-exempt status of the nation's oldest civil rights organization, saying criticism of President Bush at the NAACP's national convention in July may have violated rules against partisan activity.


NAACP Chairman Julian Bond says about the IRS probe: "We intend to fight this with every resource we have."
By Henry Koshollek, The Capital Times file

In a letter dated Oct. 8, the IRS said it had "received information" that NAACP Chairman Julian Bond "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush on education, the economy and the war in Iraq" in a July 11 speech.

Feel free.

I am sure the conservatives were in an uproar about that!

Right?

Not even in the same league, Sallow, and this thread is just a distraction.

 

[Darkwind]

Damage control is in full operational mode!


I was wondering how long it would take for the back room to come up with something to deflect.

Guess it wasn't long.

Next, we'll see studies on how it is a good thing that some political ideologies should be limited and a watchful eye kept on them. For the good of society, don't ya know.

 

[Lovebears65]

Where were the Republicans in 2004, when the NAACP was audited?

I'm sure they dressed in their finest white robes while attending the weekly cross-burning and discussed it. <-----Sarcasm intended.

You do know the KKK was started by Dems ..

 

[NoNukes]

Except the tax exempt status points out they are NOT suppose to be "influencing" elections.

Anywhoo..



It's funny that Bush made a speech drawing lines in terms of people that supported his effort to make war and people that didn't.

He said, either you are with us..or against us.

Then, anyone who criticized or questioned this stance got into deep trouble.

Shinseki questioned the strategy? Forced out.
NAACP criticized the war? 2 year audit.
Rangel suggests that the draft be reinstated? Audit and embarrassed.
Several churches speak out against the war? Audits.

Where were you guys back then?

They were behind it, that is where they were.

Absolutely.

Back then? This behavior was a good thing.

Now it's bad.

What's changed?

Color?

 

[NoNukes]

Where were the Republicans in 2004, when the NAACP was audited?

I'm sure they dressed in their finest white robes while attending the weekly cross-burning and discussed it. <-----Sarcasm intended.

You do know the KKK was started by Dems ..

What party would make up the KKK today? You are living in the past.

 

[Sallow]

Well, yes, it does:

You even bother to read it?

And can you define "social welfare"? The IRS defines it as follows: "To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements)."

Social Welfare Purposes

Pretty broad guidelines that could certainly apply to "promoting liberty" or "advocating for the reduction of government debt".

These groups are allowed to to participate in politics, so long as politics do not become their primary focus. What that means in practice is that they must spend less than 50 percent of their money on politics. So long as they don’t run afoul of that threshold, the groups can influence elections, which they typically do through advertising.
What is a 501(c)(4), anyway?

Basically these organizations come out with ads that attack candidates.

That DOES run AFOUL of the threshold and does become the PRIMARY focus.

 

[NoNukes]

M

 

[legaleagle_45]

After their president chairman Bush?

USATODAY.com - NAACP in hot water over speech

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the tax-exempt status of the nation's oldest civil rights organization, saying criticism of President Bush at the NAACP's national convention in July may have violated rules against partisan activity.


NAACP Chairman Julian Bond says about the IRS probe: "We intend to fight this with every resource we have."
By Henry Koshollek, The Capital Times file

In a letter dated Oct. 8, the IRS said it had "received information" that NAACP Chairman Julian Bond "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush on education, the economy and the war in Iraq" in a July 11 speech.

Feel free.

I am sure the conservatives were in an uproar about that!

Right?

Actually, quite easy. First you must understand the difference between a 501(c)(3) organization which was the status of the NAACP in 2004 and a 501(c)(4) organization which is the subject of the current uproar.

Get back to me when you understand the differences.

 

[Sallow]

Lol, you mean the same ncaacp that continued a boycott on south carolina. After they got the confederate flag off the state house? Well it failed, ad they lost all creditbility after that.

And that merited an audit?

They don't deserve anything, the organization isn't needed, and no longer looks after the advancement of colored people. They are a joke.

Quite obviously they still are needed.

Since you have folks like Rand Paul questioning the validity of the civil rights act.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm sure they dressed in their finest white robes while attending the weekly cross-burning and discussed it. <-----Sarcasm intended.

You do know the KKK was started by Dems ..

What party would make up the KKK today? You are living in the past.

The Democrats. It is the Democrats who bring race into everything. You even keep whole cities of them chained up as pets to be trotted out for new government programs.

 

[Sallow]

Damage control is in full operational mode!


I was wondering how long it would take for the back room to come up with something to deflect.

Guess it wasn't long.

Next, we'll see studies on how it is a good thing that some political ideologies should be limited and a watchful eye kept on them. For the good of society, don't ya know.

That's the point.

They were.

 

[peach174]

After their president chairman Bush?

USATODAY.com - NAACP in hot water over speech

WASHINGTON &#8212; The Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the tax-exempt status of the nation's oldest civil rights organization, saying criticism of President Bush at the NAACP's national convention in July may have violated rules against partisan activity.


NAACP Chairman Julian Bond says about the IRS probe: "We intend to fight this with every resource we have."
By Henry Koshollek, The Capital Times file

In a letter dated Oct. 8, the IRS said it had "received information" that NAACP Chairman Julian Bond "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush on education, the economy and the war in Iraq" in a July 11 speech.

Feel free.

I am sure the conservatives were in an uproar about that!

Right?

You left out the part that NAACP made a possible endorsement of John Kerry.
IRS did drop the case.
Big difference from what has just happened.
IRS did not ask the NAACP members for their personal informantion like they just did to Tea Party and Patriots organizations.

 

[BillyV]

You even bother to read it?

And can you define "social welfare"? The IRS defines it as follows: "To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements)."

Social Welfare Purposes

Pretty broad guidelines that could certainly apply to "promoting liberty" or "advocating for the reduction of government debt".

These groups are allowed to to participate in politics, so long as politics do not become their primary focus. What that means in practice is that they must spend less than 50 percent of their money on politics. So long as they don’t run afoul of that threshold, the groups can influence elections, which they typically do through advertising.
What is a 501(c)(4), anyway?

Basically these organizations come out with ads that attack candidates.

That DOES run AFOUL of the threshold and does become the PRIMARY focus.

Then let the IRS audit their operations once they have some reason to suspect they have "run afoul of the threshold", just as they did with the NAACP. That doesn't excuse them from delaying their formation for what appears to be purely partisan reasons.

You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?

 

[NoNukes]

You do know the KKK was started by Dems ..

What party would make up the KKK today? You are living in the past.

The Democrats. It is the Democrats who bring race into everything. You even keep whole cities of them chained up as pets to be trotted out for new government programs.

You are saying that the members of the KKK are Democrats? Are you really this stupid?

 

[t_polkow]

Where were the Republicans in 2004, when the NAACP was audited?

I'm sure they dressed in their finest white robes while attending the weekly cross-burning and discussed it. <-----Sarcasm intended.

they were too busy with this

 

[Sallow]

After their president chairman Bush?

USATODAY.com - NAACP in hot water over speech

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the tax-exempt status of the nation's oldest civil rights organization, saying criticism of President Bush at the NAACP's national convention in July may have violated rules against partisan activity.


NAACP Chairman Julian Bond says about the IRS probe: "We intend to fight this with every resource we have."
By Henry Koshollek, The Capital Times file

In a letter dated Oct. 8, the IRS said it had "received information" that NAACP Chairman Julian Bond "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush on education, the economy and the war in Iraq" in a July 11 speech.

Feel free.

I am sure the conservatives were in an uproar about that!

Right?

You left out the part that NAACP made a possible endorsement of John Kerry.
IRS did drop the case.
Big difference from what has just happened.
IRS did not ask the NAACP members for their personal informantion like they just did to Tea Party and Patriots organizations.

They investigated for 2 years. And you know they didn't ask for private information, how, exactly?

 

[Sallow]

And can you define "social welfare"? The IRS defines it as follows: "To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements)."

Social Welfare Purposes

Pretty broad guidelines that could certainly apply to "promoting liberty" or "advocating for the reduction of government debt".

Basically these organizations come out with ads that attack candidates.

That DOES run AFOUL of the threshold and does become the PRIMARY focus.

Then let the IRS audit their operations once they have some reason to suspect they have "run afoul of the threshold", just as they did with the NAACP. That doesn't excuse them from delaying their formation for what appears to be purely partisan reasons.

You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?

There were very few "delays". These folks were up and running attack ads all through the Presidential campaign.

This might even turn into something beneficial for the country, if these 501(c)s are eliminated or sharply curtailed..and citizen's united is repealed.

 

[bendog]

After their president chairman Bush?

USATODAY.com - NAACP in hot water over speech

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the tax-exempt status of the nation's oldest civil rights organization, saying criticism of President Bush at the NAACP's national convention in July may have violated rules against partisan activity.


NAACP Chairman Julian Bond says about the IRS probe: "We intend to fight this with every resource we have."
By Henry Koshollek, The Capital Times file

In a letter dated Oct. 8, the IRS said it had "received information" that NAACP Chairman Julian Bond "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush on education, the economy and the war in Iraq" in a July 11 speech.

Feel free.

I am sure the conservatives were in an uproar about that!

Right?

Actually, quite easy. First you must understand the difference between a 501(c)(3) organization which was the status of the NAACP in 2004 and a 501(c)(4) organization which is the subject of the current uproar.

Get back to me when you understand the differences.

jmo, but that's being overtechnical. Realizing some of a political stripe will find the NAACP thing outrageous, the facts were that the NAACP had overtly targeted the bushii admin. The question was whether the NAACP crossed the line to support a particular candidate.

With the teaparty groups, the only defense the obama admin could have is a. well citizens united was new so we were trying to figure it out or b. we were trying to figure out if the teaparty groups were pushing one candidate rather than issues. Personally, I don't find either one persuasive, but the Obama admin didn't actually remove tax exempt status from anyone, which the bushii admin actually did. So, while I find the gop's outrage "selective" at best, there's really no logical defense of the Obama admin.