DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> "Let's stomp on Constitutional Amendments" thread
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 659, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/23/2013 08:38:27 PM · #26
I'm trying to see what the big deal is with the IRS. These organization were applying for a particular tax-exempt status (501(c)4) which would allow them to not only avoid paying taxes on their income, but allows them to keep their donors' identity a secret. The restriction on this type of organization is that their mission cannot be "primarily political" in nature.

Now, it seems to me that by accepting the name "Tea Party" (as in political party, not afternoon refreshment) they are explicitly identifying themselves as having political interests. It is the DUTY of the IRS to verify that these groups are indeed "social welfare" organizations and entitled to the tax-exempt status they desire, and not disguised political organizations seeking to apply secret money to electoral issues. There is a tax-exempt status for (527) political groups, but they have to identify their donors; obviously these groups feel that it would be detrimental to their interestes (and image) if their sources of support were known to the public.

It seems like a no-brainer that one would *google* "tea party" (and a variety of other terms) to sort out those applications which have a higher than average likelihood of requiring extra scrutiny to verify the organizations' status.

Seems to me that the hoo-haw is all about the IRS using a technological device (search) everyone else uses daily to be more efficient ... how dare they!
05/23/2013 09:29:58 PM · #27
Originally posted by GeneralE:

I'm trying to see what the big deal is with the IRS. These organization were applying for a particular tax-exempt status (501(c)4) which would allow them to not only avoid paying taxes on their income, but allows them to keep their donors' identity a secret. The restriction on this type of organization is that their mission cannot be "primarily political" in nature.

Now, it seems to me that by accepting the name "Tea Party" (as in political party, not afternoon refreshment) they are explicitly identifying themselves as having political interests. It is the DUTY of the IRS to verify that these groups are indeed "social welfare" organizations and entitled to the tax-exempt status they desire, and not disguised political organizations seeking to apply secret money to electoral issues. There is a tax-exempt status for (527) political groups, but they have to identify their donors; obviously these groups feel that it would be detrimental to their interestes (and image) if their sources of support were known to the public.

It seems like a no-brainer that one would *google* "tea party" (and a variety of other terms) to sort out those applications which have a higher than average likelihood of requiring extra scrutiny to verify the organizations' status.

Seems to me that the hoo-haw is all about the IRS using a technological device (search) everyone else uses daily to be more efficient ... how dare they!


What? You don't buy into the scandals? You aren't watching enough Fox news. If you did, you would know that there is no global warming, Obama iss ruining the country, taking guns, tanking the economy, blah blah blah.

Message edited by author 2013-05-23 21:56:16.
05/23/2013 09:51:34 PM · #28
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hey Mr. President...did you know they are snorting cocaine off intern's breasts at the Dept. of the Interior?


Ahhh, those were good parties, but the real fun always started once the diplomats showed up.
05/23/2013 10:00:34 PM · #29
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

As far as the IRS chick goes, I think what really rubbed people the wrong way (me, at least), was her preamble of "I did nothing wrong. We are total within the law. We have never lied." followed by..."I plead the 5th."


It turns out that her preamble may be more than annoying. The fact that she read it may have been an implicit waiving of her 5th amendment rights. Doh!


Which was why I started this thread.

We have seen, in the last few months alone, we've witnessed multiple attacks on the 1st, the 2nd, the 4th, and now the 5th amendment.

Honestly, these incidents are cases where someone is actively choosing to ignore the highest laws of the land, yet it seems that as of late it has become almost fashionable to simply ignore the laws, the constitution, precedent, and all other reason, simply in the name of accomplishing immediate goals.

Shame on them. Shame on us.
05/23/2013 10:02:50 PM · #30
Originally posted by GeneralE:

I'm trying to see what the big deal is with the IRS. These organization were applying for a particular tax-exempt status (501(c)4) which would allow them to not only avoid paying taxes on their income, but allows them to keep their donors' identity a secret. The restriction on this type of organization is that their mission cannot be "primarily political" in nature.

Now, it seems to me that by accepting the name "Tea Party" (as in political party, not afternoon refreshment) they are explicitly identifying themselves as having political interests. It is the DUTY of the IRS to verify that these groups are indeed "social welfare" organizations and entitled to the tax-exempt status they desire, and not disguised political organizations seeking to apply secret money to electoral issues. There is a tax-exempt status for (527) political groups, but they have to identify their donors; obviously these groups feel that it would be detrimental to their interestes (and image) if their sources of support were known to the public.

It seems like a no-brainer that one would *google* "tea party" (and a variety of other terms) to sort out those applications which have a higher than average likelihood of requiring extra scrutiny to verify the organizations' status.

Seems to me that the hoo-haw is all about the IRS using a technological device (search) everyone else uses daily to be more efficient ... how dare they!


You've missed the reason I started this thread entirely. The IRS scandal didn't bug me - same ol same ol. What bothered me was the assertion that the 5th amendment rights are waived when one proclaims their innocence.

Think about the implications man.
05/23/2013 10:21:45 PM · #31
(Pedantic aside - amendments, I think it is. Only the one "m" after the "a")

Babies, bathwater - all going out the window. And my gripe for the week? Even though I am a hobbyist photographer and spend a good amount of time looking through a lens, I'm a bit taken aback by just how much of the world going by is "watched" by holding one's cell phone up in front of one's face, at arm's reach, rather than watching directly. There is no real life anymore, is there? It's all played out in recorded images, soundbites, misdirection.

I think this is why I enjoy camping, even though it is right next to an active train track and in hearing distance of a major freeway. We all sit along that nice little stretch of beach, no phones, no laptops. Just campfires and an abundance of alcohol for those who are so inclined. And s'mores for some of us. The world needs more campfires and s'mores.

Carry on. (Ha! Talk about Freudian or whatever.... I originally typed Cory on...)
05/23/2013 10:39:36 PM · #32
Originally posted by Melethia:

(Pedantic aside - amendments, I think it is. Only the one "m" after the "a")

Babies, bathwater - all going out the window. And my gripe for the week? Even though I am a hobbyist photographer and spend a good amount of time looking through a lens, I'm a bit taken aback by just how much of the world going by is "watched" by holding one's cell phone up in front of one's face, at arm's reach, rather than watching directly. There is no real life anymore, is there? It's all played out in recorded images, soundbites, misdirection.

I think this is why I enjoy camping, even though it is right next to an active train track and in hearing distance of a major freeway. We all sit along that nice little stretch of beach, no phones, no laptops. Just campfires and an abundance of alcohol for those who are so inclined. And s'mores for some of us. The world needs more campfires and s'mores.

Carry on. (Ha! Talk about Freudian or whatever.... I originally typed Cory on...)


LOL.

You should come join me for a camping trip sometime. I'll take you to places where you can go for miles without seeing another human, or any evidence of humans other than the road.
05/23/2013 10:42:11 PM · #33
Originally posted by Melethia:

(Pedantic aside - amendments, I think it is. Only the one "m" after the "a")

Babies, bathwater - all going out the window. And my gripe for the week? Even though I am a hobbyist photographer and spend a good amount of time looking through a lens, I'm a bit taken aback by just how much of the world going by is "watched" by holding one's cell phone up in front of one's face, at arm's reach, rather than watching directly. There is no real life anymore, is there? It's all played out in recorded images, soundbites, misdirection.

I think this is why I enjoy camping, even though it is right next to an active train track and in hearing distance of a major freeway. We all sit along that nice little stretch of beach, no phones, no laptops. Just campfires and an abundance of alcohol for those who are so inclined. And s'mores for some of us. The world needs more campfires and s'mores.

Carry on. (Ha! Talk about Freudian or whatever.... I originally typed Cory on...)


who goes camping without a cell phone???? how to you find your way back to the tent without the flashlight app? How do you find the lyrics to the campfire songs?? How do you find the names of the constellations without the starchart app?

geesh -- camping without a cell phone... kids these days!
05/23/2013 11:18:18 PM · #34
Originally posted by vawendy:



who goes camping without a cell phone???? how to you find your way back to the tent without the flashlight app? How do you find the lyrics to the campfire songs?? How do you find the names of the constellations without the starchart app?

geesh -- camping without a cell phone... kids these days!


How to you find your way back to the tent without the flashlight app- NVGs duh. Of course, the cool kids have the fusion models, with Thermal/Light Amplification modules.

How do you find the lyrics to the campfire songs - Drink enough whiskey to make up your own, better lyrics.

How do you find the names of the constellations without the starchart app - See above answer RE: Use of Whiskey.

Message edited by author 2013-05-23 23:18:31.
05/23/2013 11:20:10 PM · #35
Originally posted by Cory:

Wow.

I love the move to recall the IRS employee who claimed the right to not self incriminate.

//politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/issa-will-recall-irs-official-who-refused-to-answer-questions/?hpt=hp_t3

Heck, given the way things are going, between the invasion of the privacy of the free press, the issues surrounding the 2nd amendment, and the suspension of the 4th during the Boston bombing, and now, apparently the assertion of innocence does away with the 5th amendment - I guess we should probably just accept that our leaders are now selectively ignoring whatever bits are inconvenient at the moment. A shame really.


It's difficult to believe that her preamble statement wasn't cleared with her attorney, who I'm sure knows exactly what she can say and how she can say it without waiving her rights. So she'll come back and not answer their questions again... how do they think they can compel her to testify?
05/23/2013 11:24:36 PM · #36
Originally posted by GeneralE:

I'm trying to see what the big deal is with the IRS. These organization were applying for a particular tax-exempt status (501(c)4) which would allow them to not only avoid paying taxes on their income, but allows them to keep their donors' identity a secret. The restriction on this type of organization is that their mission cannot be "primarily political" in nature.

Now, it seems to me that by accepting the name "Tea Party" (as in political party, not afternoon refreshment) they are explicitly identifying themselves as having political interests. It is the DUTY of the IRS to verify that these groups are indeed "social welfare" organizations and entitled to the tax-exempt status they desire, and not disguised political organizations seeking to apply secret money to electoral issues. There is a tax-exempt status for (527) political groups, but they have to identify their donors; obviously these groups feel that it would be detrimental to their interestes (and image) if their sources of support were known to the public.

It seems like a no-brainer that one would *google* "tea party" (and a variety of other terms) to sort out those applications which have a higher than average likelihood of requiring extra scrutiny to verify the organizations' status.

Seems to me that the hoo-haw is all about the IRS using a technological device (search) everyone else uses daily to be more efficient ... how dare they!


Agree, and I wonder if anyone has read the Inspector General's report, which concludes that the IRS employees did not act out of political motivation but rather were "taking a shortcut", pretty much exactly what you said, GeneralE.

Message edited by author 2013-05-23 23:24:59.
05/23/2013 11:25:23 PM · #37
if the government wants someone to waive their rights under the 5th, the classic way to do it is to grant immunity as to Crimes associated with the testimony. then she wouldn't have much of an excuse not to testify.
05/23/2013 11:26:20 PM · #38
Originally posted by blindjustice:

The problem with this administration is that in some lame effort to appease the good ol' boys of DC they agreed to not prosecute torture orders, not to look into the lying that brought us into an erroneous war, etc. these "Obama scandals" are chickenshit by comparison.


+++
05/23/2013 11:27:23 PM · #39
Originally posted by blindjustice:

if the government wants someone to waive their rights under the 5th, the classic way to do it is to grant immunity as to Crimes associated with the testimony. then she wouldn't have much of an excuse not to testify.


But what are the chances they will grant her immunity?
05/23/2013 11:32:27 PM · #40
Originally posted by blindjustice:

The problem with this administration is that in some lame effort to appease the good ol' boys of DC they agreed to not prosecute torture orders, not to look into the lying that brought us into an erroneous war, etc. these "Obama scandals" are chickenshit by comparison.


I'll tell you what's really a scandal is that this administration did not go after the banksters who were guilty of fraud and god knows what else. The Justice Dept should have lopped their heads off!
05/24/2013 12:06:39 AM · #41
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I'm trying to see what the big deal is with the IRS. These organization were applying for a particular tax-exempt status (501(c)4) which would allow them to not only avoid paying taxes on their income, but allows them to keep their donors' identity a secret. The restriction on this type of organization is that their mission cannot be "primarily political" in nature.

Now, it seems to me that by accepting the name "Tea Party" (as in political party, not afternoon refreshment) they are explicitly identifying themselves as having political interests. It is the DUTY of the IRS to verify that these groups are indeed "social welfare" organizations and entitled to the tax-exempt status they desire, and not disguised political organizations seeking to apply secret money to electoral issues. There is a tax-exempt status for (527) political groups, but they have to identify their donors; obviously these groups feel that it would be detrimental to their interestes (and image) if their sources of support were known to the public.

It seems like a no-brainer that one would *google* "tea party" (and a variety of other terms) to sort out those applications which have a higher than average likelihood of requiring extra scrutiny to verify the organizations' status.

Seems to me that the hoo-haw is all about the IRS using a technological device (search) everyone else uses daily to be more efficient ... how dare they!


Agree, and I wonder if anyone has read the Inspector General's report, which concludes that the IRS employees did not act out of political motivation but rather were "taking a shortcut", pretty much exactly what you said, GeneralE.


But Obama disagrees. He's outraged over it. Nothing would please him more than America to focus on this instead of drones, concentration camps and death tolls.

Message edited by author 2013-05-24 00:07:40.
05/24/2013 12:51:08 AM · #42
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I wonder if anyone has read the Inspector General's report, which concludes that the IRS employees did not act out of political motivation but rather were "taking a shortcut", pretty much exactly what you said, GeneralE.


Please do not allow whatever facts come out of these investigations distract you from the necessary punishments. Obama must be impeached and several people must go to prison. Whatever the facts say, the investigation must warrant this outcome.

There may be some fire under all this smoke, but since this president has been elected he has been under investigation and attack with calls for impeachment for any bobble of his administration. It is hard to credit his opponents with clear eyed concern for the long term interests of the nation since they have been crying that the sky is falling since they lost the office.

These are troubling allegations but unprecedented? No. If I compare the furor over " fast and furious" at the ATF or The IRS scandal of the moment, and compare them to how the press dealt with the previous administration's problems with Exposure of an active CIA agent for political reasons or the Dismissals of Attorneys General even if the worst possible involvement of the White House is proven, and for the worst possible motives, I have trouble seeing them as any where near as serious, and that skips the whole issue of Enron and leading us into a war that was entered into by a path of lies and deception.

To those who may say the press is being too favorable on our current president, can you remember these little slips that occurred last administration and were not reported on?

Claude Allen, Bush's top domestic policy aide, was arrested when he tried to return items he had shoplifted from Target for cash refunds.

Randall Tobias, Bush’s AIDS tsar, mandated that organizations must oppose prostitution in order to receive American aid. It later emerged that Tobias purchased services through the notorious D.C. Madam, though Tobias maintained he only bought “massages.”

The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service would not seem to be the sexiest government agency. But a departmental investigation last year found that officials had “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.”

In 2004, Pentagon auditors found that Halliburton had not adequately accounted for $1.8 billion of the bill it sent to the United States government for its work in Iraq and Kuwait.

Conservative commentator Armstrong Williams received a $240,000 contract from the Department of Education to promote No Child Left Behind on his television show and to sell other African-American journalists on the legislation. Later, The Washington Post uncovered a similar deal with columnist Maggie Gallagher to promote a marriage initiative for the Department of Health.

I always though those stories warranted the odd bit of print, and a consideration that someone might be sent to prison. AND THOSE WERE PROVEN. THEY HAPPENED.
05/24/2013 01:09:07 AM · #43
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

... The pres had to know something about something. If not he either needs his hearing checked or his entire staff needs to be fired, or he is truly inept at his job. (not a bad idea there)


Funny thing about this comment is that the USA went to war looking for WMD... have they found those yet?

Considering the sheer size of the bureaucracy, and bearing in mind the prevailing CYA approach to things by the various players... I would not be be least bit surprised that the President did not know about a lot of things.

Ray


Well actually we did have WMD in Iraq. It never made the media however. I cant understand that.

In Northern Iraq several engineering soldiers were hospitalized after finding a cashe of munitions with mustard gas (a wmd) in them. There was also tons of yellow cake uranium that was found in Baghdad. Now granted it is not like finding a nuke...but they were there


... and yet, this can be found in Wikipedia:

" Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq". A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war"."

Unless I am very much mistaken, yellowcake is unenriched uranium and cannot by itself be used for a nuclear weapon and as such cannot in itself be considered an WMD. With regards to the mustard gas, those were probably leftovers from the war between Iran and Iraq.

Yes, limited amounts of WMD may have been found, but certainly not the stockpiles that some would have you believe.

Ray
05/24/2013 01:14:45 AM · #44
Cory, to your original point I don't think the constitution is being stepped on. As one member of congress said, you can't just tell your side of the story and then not be open to cross examination. You can't have your cake and eat it. She would have been smart just to plead the 5th, but she felt compelled to proclaim her innocence first. I don't think they are just making up rules here. I'm guessing there is at least some legal precedent for the idea of the waiving of her 5th amendment rights.
05/24/2013 01:18:34 AM · #45
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Cory, to your original point I don't think the constitution is being stepped on. As one member of congress said, you can't just tell your side of the story and then not be open to cross examination. You can't have your cake and eat it. She would have been smart just to plead the 5th, but she felt compelled to proclaim her innocence first. I don't think they are just making up rules here. I'm guessing there is at least some legal precedent for the idea of the waiving of her 5th amendment rights.


Do you mean something like This Doc?

Ray
05/24/2013 01:24:48 AM · #46
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Cory, to your original point I don't think the constitution is being stepped on. As one member of congress said, you can't just tell your side of the story and then not be open to cross examination. You can't have your cake and eat it. She would have been smart just to plead the 5th, but she felt compelled to proclaim her innocence first. I don't think they are just making up rules here. I'm guessing there is at least some legal precedent for the idea of the waiving of her 5th amendment rights.


Do you mean something like This Doc?

Ray


Originally posted by article:

The Miranda court held that the privilege is not waived “if the individual answers some questions or gives some information on his own, prior to invoking his right to remain silent.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 476 (1966).

A few years prior to the Supreme Court decision in Miranda, the Court laid the groundwork for determining whether or not a Defendant had waived his Fifth Amendment privileges. The Court stated:

"The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Anything less is not a waiver."


Seems to me that new ground is being broken here. To assert that one has waived their right simply by stating innocence is mad, the above from your article supports that position.
05/24/2013 01:30:49 AM · #47
We're all doing a lot of armchair lawyering here. First, I have a hunch that Miranda rights pertaining to criminal charges are different than a congressional subpoena. She wasn't being charged with any crime, etc. Really, I have no idea, but my hunch is that members of congress, the majority of whom are lawyers are gonna have a better idea than us. Right now it's all talk. Lets wait to see if she is actually compelled to answer the questions.
05/24/2013 01:37:37 AM · #48
Others have done it.
05/24/2013 01:38:13 AM · #49
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We're all doing a lot of armchair lawyering here. First, I have a hunch that Miranda rights pertaining to criminal charges are different than a congressional subpoena. She wasn't being charged with any crime, etc. Really, I have no idea, but my hunch is that members of congress, the majority of whom are lawyers are gonna have a better idea than us. Right now it's all talk. Lets wait to see if she is actually compelled to answer the questions.


The fact remains that the very attempt to compel her to testify is astonishing.
05/24/2013 01:45:09 AM · #50
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We're all doing a lot of armchair lawyering here. First, I have a hunch that Miranda rights pertaining to criminal charges are different than a congressional subpoena. She wasn't being charged with any crime, etc. Really, I have no idea, but my hunch is that members of congress, the majority of whom are lawyers are gonna have a better idea than us. Right now it's all talk. Lets wait to see if she is actually compelled to answer the questions.


...and it could very well be that failure to answer question might result in "Contempt" ... but you are right, best we wait and see.

Ray

Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 07/21/2019 12:54:39 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/21/2019 12:54:39 PM EDT.