The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 251
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,206

    Default

    kathy--You lost me. Start talking "libs" and the right wing nut jobs come out. It's all the same. Bush did the same shit and much, much worse, and the right wing nuts praised what he did. It's all the same crap. Seriously, a fake 10 year war for oil, and we probably wouldn't even have any debt right now. So, don't go there.

    Jeese. No Constitutional rights now? Fire someone without actual facts?

    The inflammatory words with no purpose is not useful for discussion. As soon as you start the name-calling, you lose.
    Last edited by Beentheredonethat; May. 25, 2013 at 04:00 PM.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    9,860

    Default

    Read this article
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n-kay-melchior

    About 8 years ago, I started questioning why my nearly broke school district was spending $52 million on a new administrative facility and something very similar happened to my family. It became a huge mess. The school board than had been in place for decades was thrown out and the superintendent was charged with several felonies. But not before my kids (along with a couple dozen others) were targeted and forced out of the school district.

    This is what happens in large bureaucracies with protected employees who have pensions to protect. A pack mentality develops and they circle the wagons. Anyone outside of the circle is suspect.


    With regards to Obama's house of cards, it's got nothing to do with Bush. That is the type of excuse that school children offer.

    Obama met with the IRS union boss the day for the BOLO process began. No one will say what the meeting was about.
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/did-...y-wh-won-t-say

    The IRS hasn't provided material they were under subpoena to produce regarding their communications with the White House.
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-...munications-wh

    And no one is being held accountable for what occurred.

    Apparently Obama has learned that it's better to look stupid than crooked.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...tantly-one-day

    The IRS scandal, AP/Fox press tracking by the AG and Benghazi .....
    All these issues preceded the election.

    If the public was informed of the truth in these matters, who knows what the outcome would have been?
    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,206

    Default

    wow. Obama house of cards. I see that on Jon Stewart every night when he shows the clips of every show doing the talking points of FOX, but then he adds the other side of the story.



  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    9,860

    Default

    So what exactly is "the other side" of the IRS targeting groups based on their ideology?
    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,206

    Default

    The IRS not giving tax free status to ANY political group, let alone letting them hide donors. They should be targeting them ALL.



  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    9,860

    Default

    So don't think organizations like the California Teachers Association should have 501 (c) 4 status?

    It's fine if you disagree with the law, but it doesn't explain or justify enforcing it selectively.
    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,206

    Default

    Of course not. Why should they? I really object to the changing of the law focus from helping to community to helping the right wing corporations hide the money they feed into getting their agenda. Of course all sides do it, but trying to pretend the right wing tea party nuts haven't been behind some of the biggest atrocities, like Citizens United, is naive at best. It's out of control on both sides, but thinking that the corporate led right isn't forging the path shows who's putting on your blinders.

    The story blasted across the news should not be bad IRS for targeting tea party groups, it should bad IRS for not targeting ALL of them and actually DENYING them status, which I think they did once.



  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2005
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    3,596

    Default

    You do realize that jon is a comedian, right?


    3 members found this post helpful.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,206

    Default

    Yes, minnie. That's the point. FOX viewers aren't getting as much of the story as a comedian gives. It tales a comedian to do the "reporting" of showing the repeated clips of the same words said over and over by a bunch of their shows, then show clips of them saying the exact opposite when it comes to the other side.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    9,860

    Default

    Civic leagues and social welfare organizations have had the legal right to exist for years. (Thank goodness for Obama because he never would have had a job without them, lol.)

    What, specifically, do you object to about Citizens United?


    Pssst Fox News operates by established journalistic standards.
    Comedians don't have such constraints.
    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,206

    Default

    You mean allowing unlimited contributions to politicians by anyone like corporations, and not having to let anyone know you did it? What exactly do I see wrong with, say Exxon being able to giving 500 million to elect who they want, so they might have a few laws overlooked when they have a multibillion dollar problem?

    Gee. I don't see any problem with that.

    Pst. Journalistic standards? And what would those be? Make sure you focus on the stories that the corporate owners want so you can brainwash people to think what you want? Psst. Watch Outfoxed, which is about 15 years old and was done WAY before Fox got bad. Not exactly journalism.



  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,206

    Default

    Supreme Court Decision Led to Popularityh of Super PACs
    A relatively new phenomenon, super PACS proliferated following the January 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision that said the government cannot restrict the spending of corporations, unions, and other groups for political campaigns, maintaining that it's their First Amendment right to support candidates as they choose.

    In the majority decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."

    The Citizens United decision resulted in the proliferation of super PACs that opened the floodgates for unlimited amounts of money to be poured into political campaigns. It also dismantled the McCain–Feingold campaign-finance law that banned issue ads and soft money (funds contributed to the Republican and Democratic National Committees, and to the party committees in each state) in political campaigns.

    Super PACs Influential in Midterm Elections
    The 2010 midterm elections were the first test of the effects of the Citizens United ruling—and the influence of super PACs. Some $80 million was spent by super PACs during the midterm election cycle. Republican candidates largely reaped the benefits of the PACs' largesse, and Republicans won control of the House. Democrats cried foul, saying the elections were being bought by deep-pocketed individuals and companies and questioned what the donors expected in return for their contribution. But it was not long before Democrats established their own super PACs.

    The already lax rules governing Super PACs are riddled with loopholes. For example, candidates cannot communicate or coordinate with PAC organizers, but they can speak to a group of donors at a fund-raising event and leave the gathering before any planning or coordinating about fundraising occurs.

    Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert helped to educate the public about PACs, famously mocking them on his show, The Colbert Report. In fact, he created his own super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, which collected more than $1 million as of early 2012. The PAC ran ads in South Carolina that took aim at Mitt Romney.

    Democrats Jump on the PAC Bandwagon
    President Obama was an early critic of the Citizens United Ruling, calling it a "threat to democracy" and a "victory" for Wall Street and Big Business. He further criticized the ruling in his 2010 State of the Union address, saying the decision would allow "special interests—including foreign companies—to spend without limit in our elections." He went on, "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests."

    As Republican-backed super PACs raised vastly more sums than the Democrats—Karl Rove's two PACs, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, have raised more than $51 million—Democrats felt they were left with no other option than to join the fray. Despite his condemnation of the 2010 ruling, Obama announced in February 2012 that he work with—but not coordinate with—Priorities USA Action, the Democratic super PAC organized to help Obama win reelection. He also said that members of his administration would speak at the PAC's fundraisers.

    Despite the rule that candidates cannot closely associate with super PACs, the 2012 presidential campaign clearly illustrated that candidates on both sides of the aisle plan to push the limits of campaign finance regulations.

    Here are links to the super PACs associated with the main candidates in the 2012 presidential election:

    Newt Gingrich: Winning Our Future
    Barack Obama: Priorities USA Action
    Mitt Romney: Restore Our Future
    Rick Santorum: Red White and Blue Fund


    Read more: Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/us/governm...#ixzz2UHhwWYwV



  13. #33
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    9,860

    Default

    You don't believe in free speech then?
    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,206

    Default

    Ah, you define free speech as those who have the most money should be able to buy the politicians they want to make the laws that benefit them then? Like, oh, say Mitt Romney?

    You define money as speech, then?

    Hm. Just finishing up teaching the Civil War. I somehow just know our Founding Fathers 100% disagree with you.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    9,860

    Default

    You know I had the pleasure of meeting Mitt Romney at a dressage show a few weeks ago. (Rafalca looked even better than she did in London). He is a pretty interesting guy. And certainly more personally invested in social welfare than most democratic politicians like Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Biden.

    I don't define money as free speech. The US Supreme court does in multiple decisions. Buckley v Valeo being the most important probably.
    I define free speech as the unfettered exchange of ideas. And I believe in the ability of individuals to make up their own minds about the value of those ideas. For instance, the website you link as a reference is sponsored by a text book publisher. That means they aren't exactly neutral. They list Title I, Title III, school improvement and IDEA as majors sources of revenue. Those are all federal mandates. They wouldn't be likely to cast a social welfare organization that believes those programs should be done away with in a favorable light.

    But if it's money that concerns you, no corporation has more than the US government. And the federal government is pretty good at getting their talking points out there. In the end, the debate over finance reform comes down to the promotion or surpression of liberty. I am pretty sure the founding fathers would come down on the side of promoting liberty.

    All that is really besides the point however.
    The IRS should not be targeting applicants for exempt status based on their ideology. There is no justification for what the IRS did-none. You can say that liberal groups were disqualified. But they disqualified under ordinary criteria. They weren't subjected to extra scrutiny, they were disqualified because they didn't meet the requirements as defined by the statute, not because of their ideology. What would the public's reaction be if we found out the groups with the words Hispanic, African American or LGBT were singled out because of their names?

    psst most if not all of the founding fathers were dead well before the civil war began. But several of them predicted that the war would occur right around the time it did.
    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    19,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat View Post

    But after repeated attempts to force a change, all Wertheimer has gotten is a letter in July 2012 stating the IRS is "aware of the current public interest in the issue" and that it will "consider proposed changes in this area."

    It was signed by Lois Lerner, director of the IRS division on tax-exempt organizations who disclosed earlier this month that tea party groups were targeted for special scrutiny and who on Wednesday told a House committee she had done nothing wrong before invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
    And THIS is why Lois Lerner should be fired!
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    4 members found this post helpful.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Mar. 22, 2000
    Location
    America, The Beautiful!
    Posts
    2,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bristol Bay View Post
    Kathy, this is exactly the kind of bull$hit I am talking about. Anyone who thinks True the Vote is not a political operation whose purpose is to prevent voters from exercising their rights is lying.

    And shame on Obama and congressional Democrats for piling on instead of fighting the real enemy, Citizens United.

    http://www.propublica.org/article/a-...fraud-watchdog
    True the Vote is not a political organization if you mean to interpret that to mean left or right. True the Vote was formed to educate and train non partisan poll watchers because there was an obvious lack of poll workers period.

    True the Vote is an initiative developed by citizens for citizens, meant to inspire and equip volunteers for involvement at every stage of our electoral process. We promote ideas that actively protect the rights of legitimate voters, regardless of their political party affiliation.We are working to restore integrity to the American system of electing its leaders. With True the Vote, we have, "deconstructed the entire process, focusing on educating voters, examining the registry, recruiting, training and mobilizing election workers and poll watchers, training how to collect data all along the way, then use the data to shape government action and legislative agendas to support desperately needed election code reform."

    Our government was built upon the belief that election results represent the true will of the people and our election processes were always intended to be supported by citizen volunteers. We are helping stop corruption where it can start – at the polls.
    My Mom is a poll watcher and has been election judge in previous elections. She has seen everything. They were trained by the county, but did receive a presentation by True the Vote. It was educational and informative. There was nothing partisan about what they were doing.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2010
    Location
    Westford, Massachusetts
    Posts
    4,015

    Default

    Go the the True The Vote website and read through some of the articles (older as well as newer, there is a consistent pattern) on their "Latest New" page...hardly non-partisan. An individual training session, maybe/maybe not, but the overall mission is not neutral.



  19. #39
    Join Date
    Mar. 22, 2000
    Location
    America, The Beautiful!
    Posts
    2,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canaqua View Post
    Go the the True The Vote website and read through some of the articles (older as well as newer, there is a consistent pattern) on their "Latest New" page...hardly non-partisan. An individual training session, maybe/maybe not, but the overall mission is not neutral.
    What I see is news stories regarding the voting process, voter fraud, vote integrity, etc. What is partisan about ensuring voting integrity and reducing voter fraud? This is a pro-voter ID group. The USA is behind other countries in requiring voter identification. It has nothing to do with suppressing votes but ensuring votes are counted fairly. With all the stories coming out of people voting multiple times, absentee ballots being sent in for people who actually showed up at the polls, absentee ballots sent too late to our military personnel overseas, etc; you don't think groups like this are needed?

    My Mom witnessed vans of elderly brought to the polls with the occupants having no idea where they were or what they were there for. One woman was blind and could not sign the voter rolls. Of course this is an issue and needs to be address, but the driver of the van had a partisan voter badge on her jacket and guess who filled out the ballot for the blind voter?

    I think the whole voter system needs to be improved, starting with free ID supplied. Btw, if ID is required to obtain welfare, booze, cigarettes, etc, why not votes?

    Edit to say sorry, did not mean to get off track RE IRS issue.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    4,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kathy s. View Post
    She is being paid while on administrative leave. Citizens would not be given that privilege.
    I believe Lois Lerner is a citizen, but hey if you want to call her a non-citizen delusion is free with you. Blather on about all the Faux News headlines. You have nothing to add to any political discussion but the headlines from the Faux News shows. Now IRS employees are not citizens.....gotta love it !



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Jun. 23, 2010, 07:28 PM
  2. The Cocktail Party Thread (a.k.a. The "Jack This Thread")
    By i_x3_theponiez in forum Off Course
    Replies: 307
    Last Post: Jan. 28, 2009, 11:18 PM
  3. Replies: 37
    Last Post: Oct. 15, 2008, 03:13 PM
  4. Replies: 105
    Last Post: Apr. 5, 2004, 11:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •