CSNbbs

While conservative groups waited years for their status, Obama had no problem granting the Satan cult tax free status in just 10 days.

I guess we know who the Satan Cult group was politically supporting.

The cult is known for sponsoring after school satan clubs.




http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/20/irs...-says.html

Some conservative groups are STILL waiting. Hopefully Trump will gut the IRS of their leftists.

Another Fox News article with no context. All it does is say that there are conservative groups that have taken longer. What they don't do is compare the paper work from this group to those other groups that are "still waiting". It also didn't address the question: "Did the Obama administration's IRS ever approve a conservative group in a similar time frame?" maybe even "What causes a discrepancy in approval time?"

That tells me that either:

They saw that that answer is yes.

They know their audience so well that they know they will post it on a message board without asking the question themselves.

They did the same thing with an article last week with the "Soros paid the protestors" article they wrote.

So Obama personally approves all tax-exempt status applications now?

I actually hope there is an after school Satan Club and look forward to reading about their silly hijinks.

(03-20-2017 01:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]So Obama personally approves all tax-exempt status applications now?

Has to be, because he said there wasnt a smidgeon of evidence to suggest that conservatives were targeted. SO he must have a hand in it if he is willing to open his piehole about it? Right? Or do you agree that was just Obama talking out of his ass when he said that?

so dont care

(03-20-2017 01:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]So Obama personally approves all tax-exempt status applications now?

He's like Santa Claus, flying around the entire world in one night approving status applications.

(03-20-2017 02:34 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-20-2017 01:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]So Obama personally approves all tax-exempt status applications now?

Has to be, because he said there wasnt a smidgeon of evidence to suggest that conservatives were targeted. SO he must have a hand in it if he is willing to open his piehole about it? Right? Or do you agree that was just Obama talking out of his ass when he said that?

Well...Obama's not the one talking from certain places, as he said nothing of the sort. Sorry.

Quote:O'REILLY: So you're saying there was no corruption there at all.

OBAMA: That's not what I'm saying.

O'REILLY: I want to know what you're saying. You're the leader of the country.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: You're saying no corruption, none?

OBAMA: There was some bone-headed decisions.

O'REILLY: Bone-headed decisions. But no mass corruption?

OBAMA: Not even mass corruption. Not even a smidgeon of corruption.

What he's saying is that there was no evidence of corruption (meaning involvement) from the WH. He never said conservatives were not targeted.

(03-20-2017 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-20-2017 02:34 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-20-2017 01:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]So Obama personally approves all tax-exempt status applications now?

Has to be, because he said there wasnt a smidgeon of evidence to suggest that conservatives were targeted. SO he must have a hand in it if he is willing to open his piehole about it? Right? Or do you agree that was just Obama talking out of his ass when he said that?

Well...Obama's not the one talking from certain places, as he said nothing of the sort. Sorry.

Quote:O'REILLY: So you're saying there was no corruption there at all.

OBAMA: That's not what I'm saying.

O'REILLY: I want to know what you're saying. You're the leader of the country.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: You're saying no corruption, none?

OBAMA: There was some bone-headed decisions.

O'REILLY: Bone-headed decisions. But no mass corruption?

OBAMA: Not even mass corruption. Not even a smidgeon of corruption.

What he's saying is that there was no evidence of corruption (meaning involvement) from the WH. He never said conservatives were not targeted.

So you are saying that Obama said the whitehouse made some bone-headed moves? Because you are saying he was talking about the whitehouse, right?

We already litigated this years ago. You have to understand how the IRS operates. They go where THEY feel there is the best or biggest chance to find fraud. They chose mostly conservative sounding groups. That was the bone-headed decision. The White House made no decisions on the matter because they have nothing to do with the approval of exempt organization applications nor really anything the IRS does on a day to day basis when it comes to their investigations.

Again, to this day, there has not been one smidgen of evidence brought forth to show that this operation was in any way affiliated with Obama or the White House. Sorry.

(03-20-2017 03:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]We already litigated this years ago. You have to understand how the IRS operates. They go where THEY feel there is the best or biggest chance to find fraud. They chose mostly conservative sounding groups. That was the bone-headed decision. The White House made no decisions on the matter because they have nothing to do with the approval of exempt organization applications nor really anything the IRS does on a day to day basis when it comes to their investigations.

Again, to this day, there has not been one smidgen of evidence brought forth to show that this operation was in any way affiliated with Obama or the White House. Sorry.

Once again, if Obama was talking about the whitehouse, he said the whitehouse made some bone-headed moves. I have yet to see those bone headed moves litigated, as they would be illegal.

If Obama was talking about the IRS, then he was giving assurances to something he could not. Because either he was involved in the targeting, or he wasnt and was talking out of his ass.

And show me evidence of where this was ever "litigated".

C'mon man. We had thread after thread about the IRS 'scandal'. I'm not going to rehash it all again.

(03-20-2017 03:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]C'mon man. We had thread after thread about the IRS 'scandal'. I'm not going to rehash it all again.

you said it was litigated. I asked for a link. or, you could retract your statement that it was litigated.

Litigated does not have to mean in a trial dude. We talked it into the ground here for months. I'm not doing it again.

(03-20-2017 04:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Litigated does not have to mean in a trial dude. We talked it into the ground here for months. I'm not doing it again.

Litigate: to make (something) the subject of a lawsuit : to cause (a case, an issue, etc.) to be decided and settled in a court of law

So, do you have a link as to what the dictionary says litigate means?

Quote:2. Archaic. to dispute (a point, assertion, etc.).

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/litigate

(03-20-2017 04:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:2. Archaic. to dispute (a point, assertion, etc.).

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/litigate

ARCHAIC

1. marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; antiquated:
an archaic manner; an archaic notion.
2.
(of a linguistic form) commonly used in an earlier time but rare in present-day usage except to suggest the older time, as in religious rituals or historical novels. Examples:
thou; wast; methinks; forsooth.
3.
forming the earliest stage; prior to full development:
the archaic period of psychoanalytic research.
4.
(often initial capital letter) pertaining to or designating the style of the fine arts, especially painting and sculpture, developed in Greece from the middle 7th to the early 5th century b.c., chiefly characterized by an increased emphasis on the human figure in action, naturalistic proportions and anatomical structure, simplicity of volumes, forms, or design, and the evolution of a definitive style for the narrative treatment of subject matter.
Compare classical (def 6), Hellenistic (def 5).
5.
primitive; ancient; old:


Keep swinging and missing.

Sounds like Satan had a better lawyer.