|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
08-03-2018, 02:23 PM
|
|
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,222
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
You're right. As much as you guys deflect and change the topic, its really hard to follow all the BS you throw around.
|
You're projecting again Mike.
__________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Mr. Underhill
|
08-03-2018, 03:24 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
I mentioned CU, but linked specifically to and discussed the "dark money" regulations that the Trump administration just relaxed to the delight of the GOP and consternation of Democrats. In any event, this dark money phenomena is something the Democrats want to get rid of and the Republicans want to keep around, even enhance. I know you have a hard time wrapping your head around the idea that the GOP and Trump aren't completely ethical and honest. Maybe Mueller will help set you straight.
|
The Dems want to "get rid of" it to the extent that they can try to use it as a campaign issue....while they're busy capitalizing on the influx of dark money to their coffers. Don't believe me, though. You revered John McCain on this topic in a prior post in this thread. Here are his words about the Dem's efforts on the Disclose Act:
In a floor speech against the DISCLOSE Act, McCain, co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which overhauled campaign finance law, said Whitehouse’s bill doesn’t cut it.
“The American people will see it for what it is – political opportunism at its best, political demagoguery at its worst,” McCain said.
Dems want this issue to the extent that they can corral free speech. But no one has the guts to do what would not curtail speech but would slow the influx of money: make every dollar contributed TAXABLE.
|
08-03-2018, 03:59 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,907
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Dems want this issue to the extent that they can corral free speech. But no one has the guts to do what would not curtail speech but would slow the influx of money: make every dollar contributed TAXABLE.
|
That'll never happen. The whole fake brouhaha about the IRS targeting conservative non-profits was about the IRS looking into (nearly) full-time political advocacy of groups that were supposedly non-profit pushing the envelope far beyond what the tax laws envisioned. The GOP will protect these groups at all costs with breathless lies and innuendo, just as they always have.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
08-03-2018, 04:39 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
That'll never happen. The whole fake brouhaha about the IRS targeting conservative non-profits was about the IRS looking into (nearly) full-time political advocacy of groups that were supposedly non-profit pushing the envelope far beyond what the tax laws envisioned. The GOP will protect these groups at all costs with breathless lies and innuendo, just as they always have.
|
Who the hell is talking about IRS "targetting"? Dang, you just can't stay on topic, can you?
These organizations - whatever their affiliation - do not require tax exempt status. Their very existence has created a its own industry.
You're correct that the neither the GOP or the Dems would do this willingly. It would require a grass roots effort and a ballot initiative.
|
08-03-2018, 04:44 PM
|
|
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,222
|
|
I don't know how you do it Finn. Whell is probably the most dishonest character I've run across in many years on the 'net.
__________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Mr. Underhill
|
08-03-2018, 04:47 PM
|
|
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,222
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Who the hell is talking about IRS "targetting"? Dang, you just can't stay on topic, can you?
These organizations - whatever their affiliation - do not require tax exempt status. Their very existence has created a its own industry.
You're correct that the neither the GOP or the Dems would do this willingly. It would require a grass roots effort and a ballot initiative.
|
Dude, you brought up taxes in post #32. Are you really this disconnected from reality?
__________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Mr. Underhill
|
08-03-2018, 05:20 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,907
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Who the hell is talking about IRS "targetting"? Dang, you just can't stay on topic, can you?
These organizations - whatever their affiliation - do not require tax exempt status.
|
Such "social welfare organizations" are required to dedicate the majority of their time to the non-profit activity and not political activity in order to retain their tax-exempt status.
A 501(c)(4) social welfare organization generally pays no taxes on its income, but may not offer its donors a tax deduction. Social welfare organizations may conduct unlimited lobbying and may engage in partisan political campaign work, but only as a secondary activity.
If an organization’s primary purpose or activity is partisan political activity, the organization does not qualify as a 501(c)(4). Partisan activity is defined as anything that tends to show support or opposition to a candidate or group of candidates.
The issue becomes how the "primary purpose" threshold is defined and enforced. The GOP wants a very liberal interpretation and have pushed the envelope on the law (that's what the whole IRS brouhaha was about), whereas the Dems want a stricter interpretation of the rule.
I'm amazed at how little you know about stuff you claim to know and care about. You're a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
08-03-2018, 06:32 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,310
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Those aren't lesions. They're implants. I can use them to read minds. In your case, unfortunately, I get nothing...
|
HAHAHAH! You made me laugh out loud...the more lame you are the louder I laugh. That was almost as funny as cancer.
My suggestion for you is that you proceed with the species transplant procedure at your earliest convenience. Its your only chance at ever becoming an actual human being.
|
08-03-2018, 08:15 PM
|
|
Ready
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,163
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
You're right. As much as you guys deflect and change the topic, its really hard to follow all the BS you throw around.
|
I think I know what you mean. You're saying that in addition to always being wrong, we argue in bad faith and use stupid rhetorical tricks.
I would have zero respect for someone like that. I'd never even try to seriously discuss anything with them.
__________________
If you Love Liberty, you must Hate Trump!
|
08-04-2018, 11:10 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Such "social welfare organizations" are required to dedicate the majority of their time to the non-profit activity and not political activity in order to retain their tax-exempt status.
A 501(c)(4) social welfare organization generally pays no taxes on its income, but may not offer its donors a tax deduction. Social welfare organizations may conduct unlimited lobbying and may engage in partisan political campaign work, but only as a secondary activity.
If an organization’s primary purpose or activity is partisan political activity, the organization does not qualify as a 501(c)(4). Partisan activity is defined as anything that tends to show support or opposition to a candidate or group of candidates.
The issue becomes how the "primary purpose" threshold is defined and enforced. The GOP wants a very liberal interpretation and have pushed the envelope on the law (that's what the whole IRS brouhaha was about), whereas the Dems want a stricter interpretation of the rule.
I'm amazed at how little you know about stuff you claim to know and care about. You're a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
|
It's amazing how little you read and comprehend. As I stated above, the parties will fight endlessly about the EXISTING rules since they are written broadly and subject to interpretation. They were probably written that way quite purposefully. It will likely take a grass-roots effort to get a law on the ballot that will clarify the rules and reduce the likelihood of broad interpretations.
No, the Dems DON'T want a stricter interpretation. The Dems want to limit political speech, thus creating more talk-track-spitting half-wits like you.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 PM.
|