Dude_abide says: "I would say Peru, but I keep seeing them in what look like fedoras. That can't be good. It'll take the Swiss a generation to get over maximus' visit, so that's a no go. Scandinavia seemed sane, until Breivik. I may apply for the Mars one way trip."
Good thinking. . . I should have thought of this. . . The moon is closer, of course, but America has already landed there and there’re probably armed colonies, which is a no-go. . . But America hasn’t been to Mars, which means there’s still potential. . . It might very well be a perfect site for a sane new world. . . Lets hope the tickets are affordable.
Dude_abides asks: "mountainlaurel... is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to shoot me?"
No, it’s just my passport and a few other things. . . I’m looking for a sane place to go. . . Some place where America hasn’t armed yet. . . Any suggestions?
Yikes!. . . When and where does it all end? . . . One day it’s America arming rebels in foreign lands. . . Another day it’s America arming teachers in our schools. . . Tomorrow it’ll probably be America arming students so they can protect themselves against teachers. . . The next day it’ll be America arming school crossing guards, playground supervisors, school janitors and cafeteria workers so they can protect themselves against students. . . On and on and on. (sigh)
Jt6gR3hM said: "If what you say is true then the 501 (c) 4 organizations would not exist. As long as you do not coordinate your activities with a candidate you can spend unlimited amounts for independent campaign activity."
Which brings us right back to the issue in the cartoon. The 501 (c) 4 was not set up to be a front for political slush funds. Currently, it is being blatantly abuse by political groups and corporations in an effort to conceal their campaign contributions from the public.
And as I said earlier, I find it odd these Tea Party folks haven’t uttered a peep about the blatant abuse of the 501 (c) 4 status. It seems to me if one is concerned about the wrongs that can occur within big government, one should be equally concerned about the wrongs that can occur within big corporations. In this case, it would be these big corporate lobbyists and operatives who are setting up these illegal political slush funds to conceal money in political campaigns.
"Since the Citizens United decision, 501(c)(4) groups, have operated as Super PACs—raising and spending tens of millions in corporate funds—without disclosing a dime of their contributors. IRS rules state that the primary activity of such groups cannot relate to political advocacy, yet examples abound of 501(c)(4) groups spending well over 50 percent of their funds on attack ads, political action committees and other clearly political expenses. These potential violations of the law have gone on for several years now, with very little interest from the Beltway media or Capitol Hill Republicans, many of whom owe their election to spending by bogus 501(c)(4) organizations."
Jt6gR3hM said: "The expenditure of your own resources to influence elections is considered, by the SCOTUS, to be expression but of course no right is absolute without "reasonable" regulation."
Why can’t you just admit it and say it in a straightforward manner, Jt6? The Supreme Court upheld the requirements for disclaimers and disclosures. Even the right wingers on the Supreme Court recognized the impact that unlimited corporate contributions could have on elections and the need of the public to discuss and take all of the outrageous campaign spending into account when voting. . . In other words, no big secret contributions.
Fairmon says: "ml post from her fav publication the NYT."
How does this pertain to the discussion about votes, disclosures, and political contributions, Fairmon? It seems to me your NYT's article is addressing a totally different issue.
Patriot1 says: "Please tell me more about how everyone is ENTITLED to vote."
Since you the original discussion that I was having with Jt6 was about votes, disclosure, and campaign contributions, I believe you’re being disingenuous here, Patriot1. If you had read Jt6's post you would have noted that he was arguing that "votes" and "campaigns contributions" were essentially equivalent and should be treated the same in regard to disclosure. I was simply pointing out to him the difference between the two and why his argument didn't fly.
TFP Commentary says: “Tennessee Housing Development Agency blamed HUD.”
Sounds like a cop-out to me. If the Tennessee Housing Development Agency had contracted with HUD for more than a decade to take care of everything from inspections to rent payments, one wonders why the Tennessee Housing Development Agency and the previous owners of Patten Towers didn’t address some of issues that have been identified.
Clearly, some of the issues and problems at Patten Towers appear to be recent developments while other problems like old wiring, switch boxes dating back decades, structural problems from lax maintenance work, rat feces that have been in the ventilation system for years, and equipment installed with no permits were not recent developments.
Jt6gR3hM said: "So I guess you are alright with our votes being made public . . . If not then why should those same people be allowed to know who I spent my money on as long as I don’t violate “reasonable” election laws."
Your argument that votes and campaign contributions are equivalent doesn’t fly for a variety of reasons. For starters, every adult citizen in America is entitled to one vote. Each citizen has equal power. In other words, one citizen’s vote doesn’t have any more influence than another citizen’s vote. Clearly, the same can’t be said when it comes to campaign contributions.
The Gun Rack
Dude_abide says: "I would say Peru, but I keep seeing them in what look like fedoras. That can't be good. It'll take the Swiss a generation to get over maximus' visit, so that's a no go. Scandinavia seemed sane, until Breivik. I may apply for the Mars one way trip."
Good thinking. . . I should have thought of this. . . The moon is closer, of course, but America has already landed there and there’re probably armed colonies, which is a no-go. . . But America hasn’t been to Mars, which means there’s still potential. . . It might very well be a perfect site for a sane new world. . . Lets hope the tickets are affordable.
The Gun Rack
Dude_abides asks: "mountainlaurel... is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to shoot me?"
No, it’s just my passport and a few other things. . . I’m looking for a sane place to go. . . Some place where America hasn’t armed yet. . . Any suggestions?
The Gun Rack
Yikes!. . . When and where does it all end? . . . One day it’s America arming rebels in foreign lands. . . Another day it’s America arming teachers in our schools. . . Tomorrow it’ll probably be America arming students so they can protect themselves against teachers. . . The next day it’ll be America arming school crossing guards, playground supervisors, school janitors and cafeteria workers so they can protect themselves against students. . . On and on and on. (sigh)
The Monster
Jt6gR3hM said: "If what you say is true then the 501 (c) 4 organizations would not exist. As long as you do not coordinate your activities with a candidate you can spend unlimited amounts for independent campaign activity."
Which brings us right back to the issue in the cartoon. The 501 (c) 4 was not set up to be a front for political slush funds. Currently, it is being blatantly abuse by political groups and corporations in an effort to conceal their campaign contributions from the public.
And as I said earlier, I find it odd these Tea Party folks haven’t uttered a peep about the blatant abuse of the 501 (c) 4 status. It seems to me if one is concerned about the wrongs that can occur within big government, one should be equally concerned about the wrongs that can occur within big corporations. In this case, it would be these big corporate lobbyists and operatives who are setting up these illegal political slush funds to conceal money in political campaigns.
"Since the Citizens United decision, 501(c)(4) groups, have operated as Super PACs—raising and spending tens of millions in corporate funds—without disclosing a dime of their contributors. IRS rules state that the primary activity of such groups cannot relate to political advocacy, yet examples abound of 501(c)(4) groups spending well over 50 percent of their funds on attack ads, political action committees and other clearly political expenses. These potential violations of the law have gone on for several years now, with very little interest from the Beltway media or Capitol Hill Republicans, many of whom owe their election to spending by bogus 501(c)(4) organizations."
Read more: Five 501(c)(4) Groups That Might Have Broken the Law | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/174458/five-501c4-groups-might-have-broken-law#ixzz2WNpT7eIo
The Monster
Jt6gR3hM said: "The expenditure of your own resources to influence elections is considered, by the SCOTUS, to be expression but of course no right is absolute without "reasonable" regulation."
Why can’t you just admit it and say it in a straightforward manner, Jt6? The Supreme Court upheld the requirements for disclaimers and disclosures. Even the right wingers on the Supreme Court recognized the impact that unlimited corporate contributions could have on elections and the need of the public to discuss and take all of the outrageous campaign spending into account when voting. . . In other words, no big secret contributions.
The Monster
Fairmon says: "ml post from her fav publication the NYT."
How does this pertain to the discussion about votes, disclosures, and political contributions, Fairmon? It seems to me your NYT's article is addressing a totally different issue.
The Monster
Patriot1 says: "Please tell me more about how everyone is ENTITLED to vote."
Since you the original discussion that I was having with Jt6 was about votes, disclosure, and campaign contributions, I believe you’re being disingenuous here, Patriot1. If you had read Jt6's post you would have noted that he was arguing that "votes" and "campaigns contributions" were essentially equivalent and should be treated the same in regard to disclosure. I was simply pointing out to him the difference between the two and why his argument didn't fly.
The Monster
Patriot1 says: "That sounds good, but how did you arrive at that?"
Revealing response, Patriot1. . . So tell us, how many times did you try to vote for Romney?
Where there's smoke ... Patten Towers residents secure in hotels until June 21
TFP Commentary says: “Tennessee Housing Development Agency blamed HUD.”
Sounds like a cop-out to me. If the Tennessee Housing Development Agency had contracted with HUD for more than a decade to take care of everything from inspections to rent payments, one wonders why the Tennessee Housing Development Agency and the previous owners of Patten Towers didn’t address some of issues that have been identified.
Clearly, some of the issues and problems at Patten Towers appear to be recent developments while other problems like old wiring, switch boxes dating back decades, structural problems from lax maintenance work, rat feces that have been in the ventilation system for years, and equipment installed with no permits were not recent developments.
The Monster
Jt6gR3hM said: "So I guess you are alright with our votes being made public . . . If not then why should those same people be allowed to know who I spent my money on as long as I don’t violate “reasonable” election laws."
Your argument that votes and campaign contributions are equivalent doesn’t fly for a variety of reasons. For starters, every adult citizen in America is entitled to one vote. Each citizen has equal power. In other words, one citizen’s vote doesn’t have any more influence than another citizen’s vote. Clearly, the same can’t be said when it comes to campaign contributions.