[quote][b]avenger[/b] - The IRS has always, and let me say this once again, ALWAYS, used tagged words and phrases to make their job of finding cheats easier[/quote]

When those "tag words" are picked to specifically target a certain group for political reasons, it is illegal, wrong, and should be stopped.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - No they do not. Those conservative groups were political organizations and not concerned about social welfare except to abolish them.[/quote]

When you hear "Social Welfare" it seems you mean government payments to people, things like food stamps and the like. When I hear social welfare, I think advocating for personal responsibility and less government. To me that is better for the welfare of society than all the food stamps that can be given.

The way to reform Congress, and the rest of the Federal Government, is to reduce its size, scope, and power. Lets get back to the true Constitutional Republic structure that was built in the late 1700's. The Federal government should have very very little influence on our day to day lives. It should be held to the very few specific powers granted it in the Constitution. We must not tolerate the twisting of those specific powers to the point where the Federal Government is all powerful.

Do that and most of the problems we see in the Federal Government would fix themselves.

Look. The fact that the IRS did wrong here is not in dispute. Obama has even said so. The only question at hand is how far up did it go.

@cyou299: "such as civics and civics issues" That is the bread and butter of the TEA Party. They are groups that advocate for change and educate about legislation. They clearly fit into the 501C (4) bracket.

[quote][b]cyou299[/b] - workers found a rich vein of groups that should not get tax exempt status and pursued it....that's nefarious how? [/quote]

Because it is against the law:

501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of "social welfare", such as civics and civics issues, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[35] An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.[36]

501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[37] and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[38] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[39] 501(c)(4) organizations are not permitted direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.[36]

Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[40] 501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[41]

The lack of disclosure has led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial.[42][43] Criticized as "dark money," spending from these organizations on political TV ads has exceeded spending from Super PACs.[44][45]

The law allows Section 501(c)(4) organizations to self-declare and hold themselves out as tax-exempt; they do not have to obtain any approval from the Internal Revenue Service, though they may.[46]

The origins of 501(c)(4) organizations date back to the Revenue Act of 1913, which created a new group of tax-exempt organizations dedicated to social welfare in a precursor to what is now Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4).[47]

Don't like the law, change it, But, never ignore it.

[quote][b]csmoore[/b] - Post-exposure rabies shots are nothing like what they used to be. The kids will get a series of injections in the arm muscle like any other vaccination; they will probably also get an IV infusion of IgG to jumpstart their immune systems.
[/quote]

True, but, the shots make you sick as a dog. I know a family who were all exposed to a rabid calf and had to undergo post-exposure rabies shots. They said it was like having a bad case of the flu.

[quote][b]THX1138[/b] - @Farmer GA: Did any of you stop to think that maybe the fox was injured and the children cornered it before they were bitten. The fox does not necessarily have rabies it could have just been backed into a corner and had no choice but to bite.
[/quote]

Perhaps, but seeing a fox during the day in a public area are both signs of rabies. It matters not, the children will have to go through the shots anyway.

[quote][b]kemosabe[/b] - We're supposed to be working together, not fracturing apart. It is an undeniable fact that we are a divided nation and religious difference is the root of that.[/quote]

To blame religion is not the answer. We have an idelogical divide. There are those of faith and those not of faith on both sides of that divide.

The divide is simple. One side advocates more power for the state and less for the individual. One side advocates less power for the state and more for the individual.

[quote][b]Arnold Friend[/b] - Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.”
AC: “I’m not so sure that that is so.”
NH: “You didn’t grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?”[/quote]

I did grow up on a farm in Georgia. Never dated a mule, horse, pig, cow, chicken, or any other barn yard animals.

This fox had to be rabid. Young kids to have to go through the treatment for rabies exposure. I feel for them.

[quote][b]Arnold Friend[/b] - If Herman Cain were President, every day would be a tea party. Hosted by the maddest of the Mad Hatters.[/quote]

So, y'all are grasping at straws. Good to know.

[quote][b]Politically Correct Name[/b] - The difference is that one is a null proposition and the other is adding something to that null.[/quote]

From my point of view, the natural proposition is that there is something there and the other takes something away.

To me, it is like saying that I feel the wind, and another saying that air doesn't exist.

@Politically Correct Name:

[quote][b]Politically Correct Name[/b] - Huh?[/quote]

The Congress is not supposed to make a law establishing religion, nor it it to make a law limiting it's free exercise. Many Atheists (and some others) have twisted that to mean that there can be no religion in the public square thereby limiting the free exercise of religion. This is not the intent of the 1st amendment.

[quote][b]Politically Correct Name[/b] - Please tell me that you don't partially base your worldview on such a thing.[/quote]

No, I had my current world view for years prior to this article. I base my world view on the beautiful order to the universe. I base it on the wonderful, vast diversity of life. In order I see patterns, in patterns, I see inteligence, in inteligence I see deity. To me, trying to explain the existance of the universe without a deity is like trying to explain the existance of a car without humans.

[quote][b]Politically Correct Name[/b] - I am sure that you missed the overwhelming irony in what you just said...[/quote]

Well, in the past few decades it is the Atheist who has twisted the simple wording of the 1st amendment into something that it never was.

[quote][b]Politically Correct Name[/b] - Would you say that not collecting stamps is a hobby or the absence of a hobby?[/quote]

An action is different from a belief. You can do something, or, not do something. You can't believe "nothing" you either believe that the nature of the universe is this or you believe that the nature of the universe is that.

I believe that the universe has a creator, you believe that the universe does not.

[quote][b]Politically Correct Name[/b] - Citation?[/quote]

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-law-life-began-earth.html

I dream of the time when we ask our representatives not what laws they passed, or, how much money they brought back to the district, but, rather, how many laws, programs, regulations, agencies, etc, did they do away with and how much money was returned to the pockets of the tax payer.

I am not holding my breath. For all of their talk, both the Dems and the Repubs feed the moocher class in order to hold on to and/or gain power. That means death for the Republic because it is unlikely that it can ever be stopped until the system falls apart.

She said that she was taking the 5th so that she would not incriminate herself, but, in her opening statement, she said she did not do anyting illegal. So, did she commit purjury?

[quote][b]Colonel McCheese[/b] - The reason they tolerate Herman Cain is that he spouts their same rhetoric. "He's one of the good 'urns," as my admittedly racist Teabagger aunt said about him. They're OK with people of color, provided they don't challenge right-wing ideology in any way and live their lives on terms dictated by old White men. If Herm Cain were to deviate from the T-bag agenda and actually start talking sense, they'd hate him just as vehemently they hate Obama. [/quote]

So, what you are saying is that the TEA party is interested in policy rather than skin color. Good to know you see that.

And BTW I looked at the Huffandpuff "offensive" sign story. I saw nothing that was racist (if you did, perhaps you need to take some time and reflect) In fact, compared to the signs that I saw about Bush, they are down right tame.

[quote][b]Anonymous Dude[/b] - The GOP has taken the findings of ONE IRS Inspector General, whose political leanings we know nothing of, and attempted to trumpet it into a national issue...Unsuccessfully.[/quote]

And the admission of guilt from the IRS itself.

[quote][b]Georgia Boy[/b] - Once we no longer have a black president they will disappear.[/quote]

Do you really believe this swill, or, are you grasping at straws? Do you think that if say Herman Cain were President, the TEA party would be protesting him?

@avenger: Fair enough. Good night sir!!

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - Actually religious organization attempt to include their beliefs into our laws constantly. (abortion, birth control, climate change denials, etc.) [/quote]

I am against abortion, not because of religious beliefs, but, because I see the unborn as human and entitled to the right to life.(BTW, I am also opposed to laws that limit ones right to die as he/she sees fit) I am with you on pre-conception birth control laws, I don't like them either. I am not aware of there being any religious aspect to climate change denials.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - Yes, a good debate, but you couldn't help but inject another topic[/quote]

No, there was nothing in my last post that I had not posted before. I know it would be easy to miss, Lots of posts