Wetumpka Tea Party President tesitifies on IRS Scandal

[autigeremt 7,260]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/04/becky-gerritson-wetumpka-tea-party-president-gives-emotional-testimony-irs-hearing

[Auburn85 438]

Here's her testimony:

[Auburn85 438]

What a jerk.

[Auburn85 438]

continuing:

[MDM4AU 338]

Champions of the party of "Tolerance" will chime in to piss on this shortly.

[autigeremt 7,260]

Typical..... Mr. McDermott needs to keep in mind the groups with which his party is supported by didn't have a problem getting their status approved to be a political activist group using tax payer funds. Idiot,

[jj3jordan 2,172]

Must have felt good to deny the Wetumpka Tea Party, an extremely dangerous threat, and the home of Miss Auburn 1974, Jenny Lynn Tankersly.

[TexasTiger 14,528]

What a jerk.

Pointing out basic facts makes someone a "jerk" in your world?

[homersapien 12,329]

Pointing out basic facts makes someone a "jerk" in your world?

Hey!

If you aren't sucking up the political theatre (aka "propaganda"),hook-line-and-sinker, you are "under informed".

[TitanTiger 21,565]

He isn't pointing out basic facts when he asserts that these folks and GOP supporters don't think they should undergo any scrutiny at all. He cannot be serious in making such a statement. Either that or he's been sitting in the corner with his fingers in his ears shouting "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU" for the past month. The contention here isn't that groups filing for non-profit tax exempt status shouldn't have any scrutiny. It's the targeting of specific groups in a biased fashion that's the problem.

That said, this whole segment of non-profits needs an overhaul regardless of political affiliation. But as the law stands right now and the types of organizations that have been permitted up to this point, the Tea Party groups should be treated no better or worse than any liberal group.

[TexasTiger 14,528]

He isn't pointing out basic facts when he asserts that these folks and GOP supporters don't think they should undergo any scrutiny at all. He cannot be serious in making such a statement. Either that or he's been sitting in the corner with his fingers in his ears shouting "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU" for the past month. The contention here isn't that groups filing for non-profit tax exempt status shouldn't have any scrutiny. It's the targeting of specific groups in a biased fashion that's the problem.

That said, this whole segment of non-profits needs an overhaul regardless of political affiliation. But as the law stands right now and the types of organizations that have been permitted up to this point, the Tea Party groups should be treated no better or worse than any liberal group.

I read many comments that give me the same impression he has.

[Auburn85 438]

Must have felt good to deny the Wetumpka Tea Party, an extremely dangerous threat, and the home of Miss Auburn 1974, Jenny Lynn Tankersly.

Yeah, that's what I don't get. They (IRS) went after some of these smaller groups as opposed to going after groups that actually has an enormous amount of reach, money, and donors.

[Auburn85 438]

He isn't pointing out basic facts when he asserts that these folks and GOP supporters don't think they should undergo any scrutiny at all. He cannot be serious in making such a statement. Either that or he's been sitting in the corner with his fingers in his ears shouting "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU" for the past month. The contention here isn't that groups filing for non-profit tax exempt status shouldn't have any scrutiny. It's the targeting of specific groups in a biased fashion that's the problem.

That said, this whole segment of non-profits needs an overhaul regardless of political affiliation. But as the law stands right now and the types of organizations that have been permitted up to this point, the Tea Party groups should be treated no better or worse than any liberal group.

Yeah, I think it's pointless for him to go :

"Hey, people were targeted under Bush."

" It's wrong you were targeted, but hey a Bush appointee was over the IRS."

"It's wrong (while talking toward Mrs. Wetumpka Tea Party lady), but I don't remember Issa complaining when Liberals were targeted under Bush."

Are all of these comments supposed to make her feel better?

There is nothing productive coming out of his mouth.

She was targeted. She has a right to speak up. McDermott has a right to what he says. And I have a right to call him a jerk.

[TexasTiger 14,528]

He isn't pointing out basic facts when he asserts that these folks and GOP supporters don't think they should undergo any scrutiny at all. He cannot be serious in making such a statement. Either that or he's been sitting in the corner with his fingers in his ears shouting "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU" for the past month. The contention here isn't that groups filing for non-profit tax exempt status shouldn't have any scrutiny. It's the targeting of specific groups in a biased fashion that's the problem.

That said, this whole segment of non-profits needs an overhaul regardless of political affiliation. But as the law stands right now and the types of organizations that have been permitted up to this point, the Tea Party groups should be treated no better or worse than any liberal group.

Yeah, I think it's pointless for him to go :

"Hey, people were targeted under Bush."

" It's wrong you were targeted, but hey a Bush appointee was over the IRS."

"It's wrong (while talking toward Mrs. Wetumpka Tea Party lady), but I don't remember Issa complaining when Liberals were targeted under Bush."

Are all of these comments supposed to make her feel better?

There is nothing productive coming out of his mouth.

She was targeted. She has a right to speak up. McDermott has a right to what he says. And I have a right to call him a jerk.

You have every right to not make sense. Exercise it!

[Auburn85 438]

[autigeremt 7,260]

He represents the typical liberal leftist that he serves in Congress for. He's a great example of the very people, along with conservatives like him, who have derailed our country and continue to lead us straight for the light.....of a coming train. In a tunnel.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Political elitist class, working under the delusion that they're our lords, and not our servants.

Watched the video in full, and the guy is an unrepentant tyrant, straight up. He's a menace to the Constitution.

[autigeremt 7,260]

Political elitist class, working under the delusion that they're our lords, and not our servants.

I just want to be a part of a team. Not a servant to the monarchy.

[homersapien 12,329]

He isn't pointing out basic facts when he asserts that these folks and GOP supporters don't think they should undergo any scrutiny at all. He cannot be serious in making such a statement. Either that or he's been sitting in the corner with his fingers in his ears shouting "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU" for the past month. The contention here isn't that groups filing for non-profit tax exempt status shouldn't have any scrutiny. It's the targeting of specific groups in a biased fashion that's the problem.

That said, this whole segment of non-profits needs an overhaul regardless of political affiliation. But as the law stands right now and the types of organizations that have been permitted up to this point, the Tea Party groups should be treated no better or worse than any liberal group.

I agree with you completely regarding the way things should be handled, but has there been any quantitative evidence (statistics) making the case that conservative groups really got singled out? Has there been any evidence provided that the standard of scrutiny (questions asked, data required) was different from what liberal organizations received?

Also, regardless of how any particular individual may have stated it, the general opinion being expressed by many implies that any scrutiny at all was objectionable. At least that's my impression. I haven't heard many - if any - conservative voices bringing up the merits of granting these groups tax exempt status. I think it has gotten out of hand. But I concede that is a different matter than the "bias" issue.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Political elitist class, working under the delusion that they're our lords, and not our servants.

I just want to be a part of a team. Not a servant to the monarchy.

Then you're not supporting Sen. Mcdermot and his ludicrous position ?

[autigeremt 7,260]

He isn't pointing out basic facts when he asserts that these folks and GOP supporters don't think they should undergo any scrutiny at all. He cannot be serious in making such a statement. Either that or he's been sitting in the corner with his fingers in his ears shouting "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU" for the past month. The contention here isn't that groups filing for non-profit tax exempt status shouldn't have any scrutiny. It's the targeting of specific groups in a biased fashion that's the problem.

That said, this whole segment of non-profits needs an overhaul regardless of political affiliation. But as the law stands right now and the types of organizations that have been permitted up to this point, the Tea Party groups should be treated no better or worse than any liberal group.

I agree with you completely regarding the way things should be handled, but has there been any quantitative evidence (statistics) making the case that conservative groups really got singled out? Has there been any evidence provided that the standard of scrutiny (questions asked, data required) was different from what liberal organizations received?

Also, regardless of how any particular individual may have stated it, the general opinion being expressed by many implies that any scrutiny at all was objectionable. At least that's my impression. I haven't heard many - if any - conservative voices bringing up the merits of granting these groups tax exempt status. I think it has gotten out of hand. But I concede that is a different matter than the "bias" issue.

So far the difference is in the treatment of multiple conservative group request (holding up the process, etc.) over the one or two liberal groups. Fact is, a lot of liberal groups received their requests over the same time frame while the conservative groups were "handcuffed", if you will. This is concerted and there's more to this story and the organization behind it.

[autigeremt 7,260]

Political elitist class, working under the delusion that they're our lords, and not our servants.

I just want to be a part of a team. Not a servant to the monarchy.

Then you're not supporting Sen. Mcdermot and his ludicrous position ?

Not One Bit.

[homersapien 12,329]

He isn't pointing out basic facts when he asserts that these folks and GOP supporters don't think they should undergo any scrutiny at all. He cannot be serious in making such a statement. Either that or he's been sitting in the corner with his fingers in his ears shouting "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU" for the past month. The contention here isn't that groups filing for non-profit tax exempt status shouldn't have any scrutiny. It's the targeting of specific groups in a biased fashion that's the problem.

That said, this whole segment of non-profits needs an overhaul regardless of political affiliation. But as the law stands right now and the types of organizations that have been permitted up to this point, the Tea Party groups should be treated no better or worse than any liberal group.

I agree with you completely regarding the way things should be handled, but has there been any quantitative evidence (statistics) making the case that conservative groups really got singled out? Has there been any evidence provided that the standard of scrutiny (questions asked, data required) was different from what liberal organizations received?

Also, regardless of how any particular individual may have stated it, the general opinion being expressed by many implies that any scrutiny at all was objectionable. At least that's my impression. I haven't heard many - if any - conservative voices bringing up the merits of granting these groups tax exempt status. I think it has gotten out of hand. But I concede that is a different matter than the "bias" issue.

So far the difference is in the treatment of multiple conservative group request (holding up the process, etc.) over the one or two liberal groups. Fact is, a lot of liberal groups received their requests over the same time frame while the conservative groups were "handcuffed", if you will. This is concerted and there's more to this story and the organization behind it.

How many is "multiple"? Is there a list?

Do we know the number and identity of the "liberal" groups?

How many is a "lot"? What sort of delay or denial is meant by "handcuffed"?

I am not following this closely so I don't expect you to do my homework on it.

But the problem I have is the apparent lack of data or facts to support the rhetorical claims. Frankly, I think this is because the Republicans are really more interested in exploiting the politics than anything else. They have all the "ammo" they need to do that and aren't really interested in the factual details, especially if they don't support the amount of outrage they can spew.

[homersapien 12,329]

(emphasis mine)

IRS Approved More Conservative Groups Than Liberal Groups Selected For Review: Report

An analysis of a list of groups approved for tax exempt status, released by the Internal Revenue Service in the wake of its admission to targeting conservative groups for heightened scrutiny, determined that of the groups approved, more than two-thirds were conservative.

The analysis, by Martin A. Sullivan of Tax Analysts, examined a list of 176 advocacy organizations that were ultimately approved for tax exempt status by the IRS during the period when the service admits to having targeted certain conservative groups with inappropriate criteria.

According to Sullivan's analysis, 122 of the groups were conservative, 48 were liberal or non-conservative and 6 remain of unidentified ideology.

The IRS released the list on May 15, after senior official Lois Lerner announced that the IRS had been inappropriately targeting conservative groups in its review of groups seeking tax exempt status for political activity.

The inappropriate targeting included the appearance of keywords like "tea party," "patriot" and "9/12" to sweep up groups for further review. Among the approved groups, 46 had names that include those words, according to Sullivan.

Sullivan's analysis, however, does not illuminate much about the targeting scandal. It shows that conservative groups were reviewed and approved more often than liberal groups, but it does not state the total number of conservative and liberal groups that applied for tax exempt status during that period. The analysis also does not identify the ideological breakdown of groups that applied and have not been approved, since the IRS is prevented by law from providing the names of groups still being processed by the service. All of these caveats are noted in the analysis.

At least one error was readily identifiable in the Tax Analysts' analysis. A group named U.S. Health Freedom Coalition is listed as a liberal or non-conservative group, when it was in fact created by the conservative group Americans for Prosperity as the principal funding mechanism for ballot initiatives opposing the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in Arizona and Ohio. The group is run by Eric Novack, a former Americans for Prosperity fellow and known conservative activist.

http://www.huffingto..._n_3396998.html

It ain't much, but it's the first data I've seen. And it doesn't support the rhetoric being used on this forum, much less in the Senate.

[homersapien 12,329]

More detailed article on the analysis discussed above:

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/D2A6C735EAFA7A9085257B7B004C0D90