Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential Election News & Discussion Center 2012 - Inauguration Day! (Page 21)

  This topic comprises 33 pages: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  ...  31  32  33   
Author Topic: Presidential Election News & Discussion Center 2012 - Inauguration Day!
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A lot of people were speculating that Trump had access to divorce papers the Obamas had drawn up when they went through a rough patch he describes in one of his books.
How weird.
Since they're obviously not divorced, if such papers existed I would be inclined to assume their marriage was all the stronger for having been tested like that.

Posts: 1524 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote:
A lot of people were speculating that Trump had access to divorce papers the Obamas had drawn up when they went through a rough patch he describes in one of his books.
How weird.
Since they're obviously not divorced, if such papers existed I would be inclined to assume their marriage was all the stronger for having been tested like that.

That sound like responsible voter talk. You need to start looking at everything Obama does negatively.

1: Raised largely overseas. That doesn't help him empathize with immigrants and other countries, it makes it impossible for him to be a real American.

2: Father abandoned him. He is hopelessly trapped trying to further his father's agenda all in a mad ploy to get him back.

3: His mother died from cancer after her insurance dropped her. He's angry at companies for trying to be successful.

4: Black. Therefore hates whites, especially rich ones.

5: Turned down a lucrative career in law to be a community organizer ergo he's a communist and collaborated with communists.

6: Religious ergo he must believe every single thing his minister said from the pulpet, especially the god damn America stuff.

Are you getting it?

[ October 25, 2012, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]

Posts: 14278 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama as a black man will be too invested in his black identity to fairly identify with whites and runs too much of a risk of instituting systems of black supremacy, so he can't be president. And since when is this a racist sentiment? That people like him would think that it is only reinforces our point more.
Posts: 14237 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Destineer, have you seen this yet?

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/10/intrade-manipulation-fail.html

quote:
the huge swing toward Romney appears to have been driven by a single trader who spent about $17,800 buying up Romney shares and pushing the Republican candidate’s chances on Intrade up to 48 percent. But the surge only lasted a few minutes before other traders whittled the price back down to what they saw as a more accurate valuation.

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I got that story. Glad I decided to short some Romney shares that night.
Posts: 4533 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Texas AG further proves the self evident need for the Civil Rights Act

quote:

The Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, has threatened to arrest international election monitors invited by liberal groups to observe the conduct of next month's presidential vote in states accused of attempting to disenfranchise minorities.

Abbott has written to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe warning that its monitors have no right to monitor the vote even though they have observed previous US elections.

"The OSCE's representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offence for OSCE's representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place's entrance," he said. "Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE's representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law."

The OSCE is sending 44 observers to voting stations across the US at the request of various groups, including the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union, because of "an unprecedented and sophisticated level of coordination to restrict voting rights in our nation". These include attempts by several states, including Texas, to introduce voter identification laws and other measures blocked by federal courts which have ruled they were motivated by racial discrimination.

In his letter, Abbott glossed over the recent judgements striking down the Texas identification law and pointed to a supreme court ruling in a case involving another state.

"The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the supreme court has already determined that voter ID laws are constitutional," Abbott said.

The US routinely sends poll watchers to elections in foreign countries, particularly those where there are concerns about the fairness of the vote.
In television interviews, Abbott denounced the OSCE as an interfering foreign body even though the US is a founding member and it was invited by President George Bush's administration to monitor the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections in the US.

"If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections," Abbott wrote. "However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This state has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system. All persons – including persons connected with OSCE – are required to comply with these laws."

The OSCE responded later on Wednesday in a letter to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, calling Abbott's threat "unacceptable" and noting that the organisation's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has an agreement with the US permitting it to monitor elections.

"The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections," it said. "The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable."

A Florida congressman running for the Senate, Connie Mack, also waded into the debate, saying that reports the United Nations wants to send election monitors was an outrage. The OSCE was founded under the UN charter.

"The very idea that the United Nations - the world body dedicated to diminishing America's role in the world - would be allowed, if not encouraged, to install foreigners sympathetic to the likes of Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Putin to oversee our elections is nothing short of disgusting," he told the Orlando Sentinal.

"The United Nations should be kicked off of American soil once and for all. And the American people should demand that the United Nations be stopped from 'monitoring' American elections. The only ones who should ever oversee American elections are Americans."

Oh man, totally giving tin pot dictators excuses to expel our own monitors now since "The US does it too!"
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Time will tell.
Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Marlozhan, you should move this post to the election annex thread.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey.
When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.
"As much as we'd hope the impact of race would decline over time ... it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago," said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who worked with AP to develop the survey.

It's our friend, the cut-through-responder-bias tests
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/27/14740413-ap-poll-majority-harbor-prejudice-against-blacks?lite

whew good thing its post-racial america

Posts: 14237 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder if it might be a consequence of the continuing dearth of jobs. It wouldn't surprise me if bad economic climates contribute to racial tensions. In fact, that's probably one way of understanding the explanation for Tea Party-type racial weirdness.
Posts: 4533 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shigosei
Member
Member # 3831

 - posted      Profile for Shigosei   Email Shigosei         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is weird:

quote:
Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 percent among Republicans compared with 32 percent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties.

That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 percent).

Among Republicans, there's a higher percentage who have explicit anti-black feelings than have implicit feelings. Among Democrats it's the reverse. I find this odd -- either the two ways of measuring really aren't directly comparable, or at least one of them isn't accurate.

It's really strange that a higher percentage of Republicans admit to racism against black people than have those feelings implicitly. I assume there's something going on besides some people pretending to be prejudiced when they actually aren't.

Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those implicit tests typically measure a particular sort of negative reaction to black faces which I'm not convinced is connected with actual bias, implicit or otherwise. My guess is that it probably has more to do with being familiar with having black people around. I strongly suspect the kind of racist who casually calls black guys "boy," or something like that, could score low on the implicit tests just because black people are kind of run of the mill for him.

On the other hand, though I've never taken one, I suspect I would have a pretty bad score, because I grew up in a part of Michigan where there aren't many black people.

Posts: 4533 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Those implicit tests typically measure a particular sort of negative reaction to black faces which I'm not convinced is connected with actual bias, implicit or otherwise. My guess is that it probably has more to do with being familiar with having black people around. I strongly suspect the kind of racist who casually calls black guys "boy," or something like that, could score low on the implicit tests just because black people are kind of run of the mill for him.\

A person like that would be actually reliably pegged by an IAT. The only way to get 'past' the IAT's prevention of responder bias in measurable degrees is to know what they are 'getting at' ahead of time and mentally reserve yourself, knowingly or otherwise, to prevent the positive bias from having a faster (more implicit and immediate) positive association.

This IAT is not confirmably, as far as I know, the head test that we saw in the Harvard demo IAT.

Posts: 14237 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shigosei:
This is weird:

quote:
Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 percent among Republicans compared with 32 percent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties.

That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 percent).

Among Republicans, there's a higher percentage who have explicit anti-black feelings than have implicit feelings. Among Democrats it's the reverse. I find this odd -- either the two ways of measuring really aren't directly comparable, or at least one of them isn't accurate.

It's really strange that a higher percentage of Republicans admit to racism against black people than have those feelings implicitly. I assume there's something going on besides some people pretending to be prejudiced when they actually aren't.

What is entailed in the explicit test? Is it people self-reporting as racist? Answering explicit questions?

I can think of a few possible scenarios where answering explicit questions could give a misleading result based on the biases in the tester's interpretation method.

Sort of like the old "fox news viewers are misinformed" study a few years back.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A person like that would be actually reliably pegged by an IAT.
Do you have a source for this? It seems to run counter to the data Shigosei mentioned. Just in the sense that the Democrat/Republican data showed a break between IAT results and explicit racially biased attitudes.
Posts: 4533 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joss Whedon endorses Romney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6TiXUF9xbTo
Posts: 7780 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*snort*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently, political endorsement is a freebie grab for churches: it's against the law and you are supposed to lose your tax exempt status, but the IRS has been structurally unable to approve church audits since 2009.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/october-web-only/why-irs-has-stopped-auditing-churches-even-one-that-calls-p.html

end result: churches can become political with impunity.

Posts: 14237 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can also fool the racist test by taking time to identify races. Or if you miscategorize the pics. Then the test comes back as undetermined. I did that, not intentionally, but I think that I know a lot of mixed race people and it gets all screwy in terms of identifying race for me.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just so we're clear; Fox News viewers are the most consistently misinformed.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Apparently, political endorsement is a freebie grab for churches: it's against the law and you are supposed to lose your tax exempt status, but the IRS has been structurally unable to approve church audits since 2009.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/october-web-only/why-irs-has-stopped-auditing-churches-even-one-that-calls-p.html

end result: churches can become political with impunity.

It's probably because these audits aren't popular on either side of the aisle. One could conclude that the audits would disproportional effect minorities who don't differentiate between church and community. They would have a huge effect in black and latino communities. It's also important to point out that churches aren't the only non-profit groups out there. The scope and impact of these audits would reach well beyond the realm of religion, even into the territory of community organizers and social welfare organizations.

And really, it should take more than a politically-themed outdoor marquee to get the IRS on you case.

[edit: typo]

[ October 29, 2012, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: capaxinfiniti ]

Posts: 542 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Capax, the hell you know about churches in minority communities, exactly?
Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

And really, it should take more than a politically-themed outdoor marquee to get the IRS on you case.

It should take more than blatantly violating the law to get in trouble for violating the law?
Posts: 4533 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
And really, it should take more than a politically-themed outdoor marquee to get the IRS on you case.

It should take more than breaking the law to get in trouble, eh?

/edit - ah, beaten to it

Posts: 14237 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nono, here's how it works: Obamacare is clearly the first step on a slippery slope down to rendering America a totally socialist nation. Specifically permitting churches to engage in partisan political activity, on the other hand, is certainly not a slippery slope to anything.
Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, guys, he disagrees with the law. You three are adorable when you snark at people and all, but... it's not actually a wacky thing to say. Here, let me demonstrate:

It should take more than smoking a joint to get you a prison sentence.

It should take more than sodomy to get you arrested (in whatever states still have those laws on the books.)

Corporations shouldn't be allowed to spend money on political speech.

It should take more than anything to get you indefinitely detained by the government.

... Those are just the ones I thought up off the top of my head, that I'm betting you guys might agree with.

People disagree with laws. A lot. This is actually not remotely surprising or flabbergasting or deserving of your sarcastic skepticism.

If you think he's wrong and it's a good law and it should be rigorously enforced, say that, and give your reasons why.

Or, if you think it's a bad law but it should be rigorously enforced anyway to preserve the rule of law, say that. This sort of smug sniping isn't really productive, though I'm sure it feels great.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Apparently, political endorsement is a freebie grab for churches: it's against the law and you are supposed to lose your tax exempt status, but the IRS has been structurally unable to approve church audits since 2009.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/october-web-only/why-irs-has-stopped-auditing-churches-even-one-that-calls-p.html

end result: churches can become political with impunity.

Easy, there. There's always a chance that some of these churches don't actually *have* tax-exempt status, the article assumes this particular church does but I don't see it actually backed up. Church in the Valley's web presence is...quaint, to say the least, so trying to figure it out myself has been inconclusive so far.

Though even if it is tax-exempt, maybe it's a matter of the IRS prioritizing resources for action? This church is tiny. If the larger churches like the United Methodist church, the SBC, even the LDS church...if one of them actively comes out in favor of a candidate, then I imagine you'll probably see IRS bureaucracy suddenly solving their internal issues very quickly. But for a tiny rural church in the middle of Texas? Probably simply not worth it.

I'm not excusing it, btw, but I wonder if that might be the reality of it.

Posts: 4078 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yeah, guys, he disagrees with the law.
Re-reading the post, I guess you're probably right, but I actually never would have thought of this. The only reason I can think of for disagreeing with the law would be if one didn't think churches should be exempt in the first place.

I mean, does he think churches should just be the equivalent of tax-exempt super PACs?

Posts: 4533 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, a small fish is a different matter, and if it's just a question of investigators having better things to do, well hey, that's legitimate. Gotta prioritize like you say.

I'm more interested in two things-one, the idea that we need to weaken the barrier between church and state as capaxinfiniti suggested. Two, wondering just what he meant exactly about minorities not differentiating between church and community (and the notion of why other church communities don't get lumped in with that), and just how exactly he came by that knowledge.

If you had said that, Dan, I would be happy to credit it as a serious, legitimate question worthy of discussion. But from capaxinfiniti, he's a partisan hack and has been for years. I'm comfortably sure I discern his meaning, and decided to call him on it.

Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aros
Member
Member # 4873

 - posted      Profile for Aros           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It looks like Whedon has endorsed Mitt. Haha.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/joss-whedon-mitt-romney-right-for-zombie-apocalypse/

Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
Yeah, guys, he disagrees with the law.
Re-reading the post, I guess you're probably right, but I actually never would have thought of this. The only reason I can think of for disagreeing with the law would be if one didn't think churches should be exempt in the first place.

Fair enough! In light of that, your question makes sense. My own inclination is towards the reason you state (no tax exempt status), so that's probably why I assumed he simply didn't agree with the law.

The "small fish" possibility given above also makes sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
. . . Two, wondering just what he meant exactly about minorities not differentiating between church and community (and the notion of why other church communities don't get lumped in with that), and just how exactly he came by that knowledge.

I thought it was pretty well documented that some minority groups, particularly black and Latino, tend to have really really strong ties to their churches. Is that not the case? I assumed that's all Capax was driving at, but I may have missed something.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This sort of smug sniping isn't really productive, though I'm sure it feels great.

Posts: 14237 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:

And really, it should take more than a politically-themed outdoor marquee to get the IRS on you case.

It should take more than blatantly violating the law to get in trouble for violating the law?

I don't think that a marquee such as the one in the article merits an IRS audit. The repercussions should be proportional to the infraction. The church or congregation could be fined, penalized, heavily censured, or placed in a probationary state. If this has happened before at the same location then the punishment could be, understandably, more significant. But when looking at the issue as a whole, there is other legal recourse the government should pursue before jumping to an IRS audit and the revocation of tax-exempt status, especially considering the precedent unnecessarily extreme measures would set.

It's also a much more complex issue than the article portrays it to be. In addition to the inherent complexity is the difficulty of prosecution. Religions and religious speech are protected by numerous amendments to the constitution. For example, just the fact that the marquee doesn't say the names "Obama" and "Romney" gives the church a substantial amount of legal wiggleroom.

Whatever one's view of this article, it isn't valid to claim churches can become political with impunity. Such a position doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

ETA this:

quote:
Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
Though even if it is tax-exempt, maybe it's a matter of the IRS prioritizing resources for action? This church is tiny. If the larger churches like the United Methodist church, the SBC, even the LDS church...if one of them actively comes out in favor of a candidate, then I imagine you'll probably see IRS bureaucracy suddenly solving their internal issues very quickly. But for a tiny rural church in the middle of Texas? Probably simply not worth it.

I'm not excusing it, btw, but I wonder if that might be the reality of it.

An important point that shouldn't be overlooked.
Posts: 542 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think that a marquee such as the one in the article merits an IRS audit. The repercussions should be proportional to the infraction. The church or congregation could be fined, penalized, heavily censured, or placed in a probationary state. If this has happened before at the same location then the punishment could be, understandably, more significant. But when looking at the issue as a whole, there is other legal recourse the government should pursue before jumping to an IRS audit and the revocation of tax-exempt status, especially considering the precedent unnecessarily extreme measures would set.
That's cool. I thought that "getting the IRS on their case" encompassed these sorts of things too, but I see what you had in mind.
Posts: 4533 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the record:

quote:
The American Red Cross does not accept or solicit small quantities of individual donations of items for emergency relief purposes. Items such as collections of food, used clothing, and shoes often must be cleaned, sorted, and repackaged which impedes the valuable resources of money, time, and personnel that are needed for other aspects of our relief operation.

The Red Cross, in partnership with other agencies, suggests that the best use for those types of donations is to support needy agencies within donors' local communities.

The best way to help a disaster victim is through a financial donation to the Red Cross. Financial contributions allow the Red Cross to purchase exactly what is needed for the disaster relief operation. Monetary donations also enable the Red Cross to purchase relief supplies close to the disaster site which avoids delays and transportation costs in getting basic necessities to disaster victims. Because the affected area has generally experienced significant economic loss, purchasing relief supplies in or close to the disaster site also helps to stimulate the weakened local economy.

http://www.redcross.org/support/donating-fundraising/other-ways-to-give/donating-goods
Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Whatever one's view of this article, it isn't valid to claim churches can become political with impunity. Such a position doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

Right now? They absolutely can.

Never mind that the marquee is an example of a church which is becoming political with impunity; the issue is that the IRS has no way to approve audits of churches at this time.

Posts: 14237 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm surprised with Hurricane Sandy we haven't seen more conspiracy theorists claim that Obama created the storm in order to cancel the election.

I actually wonder at what point postponing the election for a week would actually be a good idea.

Posts: 21490 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From what I've read, it takes an act of congress (which isn't in session).

Meaning it aint happening.

Posts: 5647 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I'm surprised with Hurricane Sandy we haven't seen more conspiracy theorists claim that Obama created the storm in order to cancel the election.

I actually wonder at what point postponing the election for a week would actually be a good idea.

well, as I posted elsewhere ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-5EcYx_D4YI

Posts: 14237 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vadon
Member
Member # 4561

 - posted      Profile for Vadon           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it'd be a good idea to postpone the election. I mean, don't get me wrong, the timing of the election sucks for those who have been hard hit by Sandy. Even if things clean up enough that we don't have millions in emergency shelters and hotels, as people return to their houses, I'd think cleaning up the mess of contaminated water would take slightly higher priority than grabbing a utility bill to provide proof for voting.

But if we postponed the election, it will create nationwide problems as many won't get the memo. States have already spent tons of money on securing voting locations and sending mailers informing people of their voting location and the date. I think postponing the election would possibly make it worse than if we keep it where it's at.

Posts: 1821 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marlozhan
Member
Member # 2422

 - posted      Profile for Marlozhan   Email Marlozhan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does this mean that if Romney wins the election, we will get to listen to some people blaming his victory on the hurricane, since Obama has more of a lead in the northeast?
Posts: 683 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marlozhan:
Does this mean that if Romney wins the election, we will get to listen to some people blaming his victory on the hurricane, since Obama has more of a lead in the northeast?

How is the hurricane supposed to give Romney any more votes?
Posts: 14237 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, it's really unlikely to really change much of anything. With the possible exception of Virginia, none of the affected states are really in play.
Posts: 21490 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Marlozhan
Member
Member # 2422

 - posted      Profile for Marlozhan   Email Marlozhan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, my tongue-in-cheek didn't come through. I wasn't being serious. Just reminiscing about the days of hanging chads...
Posts: 683 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey remember when I said this

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
The EC takes the vast majority of the population and effectively tells them that their vote in the presidential election is completely irrelevant. Mattering in a presidential election is limited to a specific handful of swing states, who effectively become a special interest that commands the electorate.

I live in Colorado. My vote matters in this election. Most of you suckers realistically don't count at all, and don't kid yourselves about it. At least you can take solace in the fact that the presidential election campaigns rightfully ignore most of you; you're meaningless. The EC ensured it. But I'll take the ads in exchange for being meaningful to the election and in turn being on a short list of states that the executive has to care about and service more than you. Enjoy.

It's all still true but it comes at a terrible price.

I'm getting over 40 calls a day.

40.

I cannot watch a single damn youtube video or stream or any internet content without 2 minute ads going BARACK OBAMA WANTS TO FEED YOUR LIMBS TO A CHINESE PERSON WHILE LAUGHING AT YOU and MITT ROMNEY IS SUPERIMPOSED OVER THE IMAGE OF A YACHT

we're dying over here

Posts: 14237 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know I've been keeping away from much of the election discussions, but here is a video of some seventy-five and older Americans and what they think of the whole situation.

It is censored, but I wouldn't call it safe for work.

Posts: 2297 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We get a lot of ads for congressional races but I have hardly seen any for the presidential race.

On a more depressing note, how does one argue facts with someone whose argument is "Obama just gives me the heebie jeebies. I know he wants to hurt America with his agenda."

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Hey remember when I said this

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
The EC takes the vast majority of the population and effectively tells them that their vote in the presidential election is completely irrelevant. Mattering in a presidential election is limited to a specific handful of swing states, who effectively become a special interest that commands the electorate.

I live in Colorado. My vote matters in this election. Most of you suckers realistically don't count at all, and don't kid yourselves about it. At least you can take solace in the fact that the presidential election campaigns rightfully ignore most of you; you're meaningless. The EC ensured it. But I'll take the ads in exchange for being meaningful to the election and in turn being on a short list of states that the executive has to care about and service more than you. Enjoy.

It's all still true but it comes at a terrible price.

I'm getting over 40 calls a day.

40.

I cannot watch a single damn youtube video or stream or any internet content without 2 minute ads going BARACK OBAMA WANTS TO FEED YOUR LIMBS TO A CHINESE PERSON WHILE LAUGHING AT YOU and MITT ROMNEY IS SUPERIMPOSED OVER THE IMAGE OF A YACHT

we're dying over here

Speaking from the storm-ravaged east coast, in a state where power outages were plentiful this week but presidential ads were few... I feel for you.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My parents back in Michigan say they can't turn on the TV without seeing ads for the ballot proposals there. There are 6, which is way more than we usually have, and they all have big money behind them, so every commercial is either for or against one, back to back, constantly.

I'm glad I don't watch much TV anymore, but they've managed to take over large bits of the internet as well.

Posts: 21490 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah. The liberals in Maryland might as well stay home, since they are going to win anyways..
Posts: 3130 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 33 pages: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  ...  31  32  33   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2