A Complete Waste of Space

one year for ignorance?

callmeslick wrote:one year for ignorance?

That's really not that much time.
Especially, when ya factor in....the five plus years?
Germany occupied France.
I'll bet they were not allowed to "discuss" that either....

Don't take that as a slap Nic.

Our last five years here in the U.S.?
Have been much the same.
While we don't have a particular law against it?
We do have the IRS and we ain't afraid to use them.

actually, I finally heard a great explanation of how the whole IRS thing came about, and why the US conservative movement doesn't wish to have the 501(C) section of the tax code enforced as it is written(that part of the tax code is over 100 years old). I'd post it here, as I did elsewhere, but doubt anyone could grasp it. Were the code enforced as written(not as re-interpreted by the Eisenhower admin), there would be no question or controversy. The law states clearly that no group can get tax exemption unless EXCLUSIVELY involved in social service and NO involvement in politics. The re-interpretation has the definition as PRIMARILY not EXCLUSIVELY, which makes for murky enforcement.

Oh they put people in jail here only after they refuse tu shut up even when they have been harrassed through every possible means, including the local "IRS" & shit.

Slick that's 1 year for saying something that's illegal to say, whether I believe it or not.

Nic

odd stuff, those laws, Nic.....several Euro states have them, but it seems to me that such things serve no purpose. Like such laws would deter a rise of fascism, naziism or the like again.

callmeslick wrote:actually, I finally heard a great explanation of how the whole IRS thing came about, and why the US conservative movement doesn't wish to have the 501(C) section of the tax code enforced as it is written(that part of the tax code is over 100 years old). I'd post it here, as I did elsewhere, but doubt anyone could grasp it. Were the code enforced as written(not as re-interpreted by the Eisenhower admin), there would be no question or controversy. The law states clearly that no group can get tax exemption unless EXCLUSIVELY involved in social service and NO involvement in politics. The re-interpretation has the definition as PRIMARILY not EXCLUSIVELY, which makes for murky enforcement.

WAY MORE THAN A SMIDGEN: VOTERS SAY IRS CORRUPT
Vulnerable Democrats facing an onslaught of conservative cash this cycle are calling for the IRS to crack down on nonprofit groups expressing political views. The Senate Democrats seeking the crackdown were quick to say that the heavy hand of the tax agency should fall on “either side,” but they pretty clearly are thinking about the conservative groups currently pummeling them for passing and preserving ObamaCare. And if the new rules sought by Obama Democrats were to work anything like the non-codified targeting that went on at the agency in the last two election cycles, liberal groups would have little to fear. Seventeen percent of the groups targeted for extra scrutiny may have been left-leaning, but when it came to actual audits, 100 percent of the targets were conservative. Despite that track record, the official line from Democrats remains that what happened at the IRS was neither corrupt nor politically motivated, but rather the result of unclear rules Team Obama is now in the process of rewriting.

on yer slick explain....

no one questions being able to raise money under legal means, Pud. Nobody. What is in question is the use of section 501(c) of the Tax Code, which allows such organizations to make contributions tax-exempt, and allows donors names to remain private(anonymous). Oh, and that 'onslaught' of cash is being matched, dollar for dollar by the Progressive/Democratic/Common Sense camp, while(as today's headlines show) the right is determined to self-destruct before they even get through the primary season.

I repeat, the law as written is CLEAR: Any group filing for exempt status under section 501(c) must be EXCLUSIVELY involved in social service activities. This means political groups don't qualify. Unfortunately, one lawyer, back in 1959, made a determination that the IRS should look the other way on groups that are PRIMARILY involved in social service, muddying the definition. That muddied definition was seen by right-wing groups as a loophole to maintain anonymity for the purpose of funding attack ads. That is both unethical and illegal, and should be no surprise that mostly 'conservative'(read: lowlife scum) groups exploited it.

Some german dudes have had up to 5 years in jail.

Those laws apparently serve no purpose, yet they exist. So there must be a purpose.

Nic

Pudfark wrote:. Seventeen percent of the groups targeted for extra scrutiny may have been left-leaning, but when it came to actual audits, 100 percent of the targets were conservative. Despite that track record, the official line from Democrats remains that what happened at the IRS was neither corrupt nor politically motivated, but rather the result of unclear rules Team Obama is now in the process of rewriting. on yer slick explain....

It was a "dead giveaway"....when ya mentioned the 100 year old law....then Eisenhower, 60 years ago...then "balled it up"....and rolled it into the present.... I'm really impressed...how ya rolled a turd...into a "snow" man.... We should send ya to Sochi..

Well...ya didn't make yer point....and ya still have to bury the "snow" man....

if you understood, or even took the time required to learn about, section 501(c), you'd be far less likely to allow yourself to look stupid in public posts, Pud. Because, that section is the core of this, the Obama 'team' is not re-writing anything, and no-one targetted anyone for political gain, ever. What the administration proposes, and frankly has every legal right to do(and watch, they will do it) is revoke the interpretation ruling of 1959, and allow the law to be enforced SPECIFICALLY as written. Go, look it up, you'll grow your little brain.....and come back with YOUR words as to the meaning of the section in question.