|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/20/2005 12:35:40 AM · #576 |
Oh, heck, why not? The thread’s gone downhill anyway (and everyone else is doing it …)
Originally posted by RonB:
Physical evidence wouldn't change the minds of the unbelievers, and would only detract from the faith of those who do believe. |
John 20:24-29
Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Thomas was the apostle I always understood best. An omniscient being would know exactly what it would take for me to believe and, if it wanted me to believe, being omnipotent, he would be able to bring about the exact circumstances under which I would believe. If this being is benevolent, then it would not want to see me suffer. If my not believing will cause me to suffer, the nature of a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being necessitates its bringing about of the circumstances under which I would believe.
In addition, if the existence of free will does not necessitate the commission of sin, then it is within the abilities of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being to create a creature that would have free will but never use it to commit sin. If the existence of free will does necessitate the existence of sin, then this omnipotent, omniscient being has knowingly created a test which is impossible for it’s creation to pass, condemning said creation to an eternal punishment, and can in no way be thought of as being benevolent.
I’ll take an order of less blessing in exchange for more evidence, please.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 10:12:04 AM · #577 |
Why 500,000 troops would not have prevented looting and violence...
When I was in the Coast Guard Academy I learned an interesting tidbit of knowledge. That when we became officers there was a possibility we might eventually serve aboard a Naval vessel and not a Coast Guard vessel. The reason being, the Navy is not authorized for police duty. Thus, for boarding, inspections, etc. The Naval fleets usually have a Coast Guard officer officiating conduct of such. (At least back when I was in the Coast Guard.)
Likewise, our military forces are not authorized to act as police in state affairs. And there are many restrictions on how they can react.
****************
After the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is questioning whether changes are needed in disaster-response policies, including repealing a law that prohibits the use of federal troops in domestic law enforcement.
The law dates to the 1870s. It was a reaction to the deployment of federal troops to former Confederate states to supervise elections and maintain law and order, known as Posse Comitatus. It was a practice that many in Congress were uncomfortable with because of the potential for abuse.
Click Here for Article |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 10:15:22 AM · #578 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Not counting two recent posts, for my part I think theSaj and I had a very fruitful discussion and I enjoyed it. |
I actually think, after several pages we'd been making progress on our discussions.
Milo and I, I believe had some very good and respectful discussions. And yeah, every now and then a response carries an attachment clause we shouldn't have. But much less than before...
We're learning... ;) |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 10:15:55 AM · #579 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
I’ll take an order of less blessing in exchange for more evidence, please. |
It's so simple and tidy...who would have known that the mind of God could be as easily discerned and dissected as US Politics? |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 10:54:34 AM · #580 |
Originally posted by "Olyuzi":
Originally posted by theSaj:
Why do we require "clothing"? can you state a reason for this...why is walking around nude unacceptable in our culture? Is it only the religious who don't want to allow public nudity or sex on public sidewalks? Can you please provide me logical reasons for such?
I think you are evading the issue that Milo is bringing up...that it is not in the democratic interests of a government to be aligning with a specific religious group for whatever reason. Wearing clothes is not the issue he's talking about.
|
No, it was directly related. Why do you wear clothes? Upon what basis?
My point is, a lot of what is being discussed are not merely "religious" but "cultural" beliefs. I know numerous people who are not religious what-so-ever but have say strong attitudes toward homosexuality.
My point is, that on what basis do we believe what we believe. Democratic interests of the government will reflect the people unless you prevent the people of one group from being able to participate. When you have a government for the people by the people the result will be a government aligned to the people.
Now, I am for checks and balances. And I do not believe one belief should infringe on another. I do believe there were many blue laws (sodomy, adultery, alcohol, etc.) that do indeed infringe. Most are slowly coming off of the books and the vast majority are unenforced. (Except in rare circumstances...and in those cases the judicial system usually decides that the law is unconstitutional.)
So excepting those, I want to know others...
I want to know on what basis. For example, right now society believes in clothes. In 50 yrs we might have a large number who do not and who want to walk around naked. Is it right or wrong? or is it up to the composite view and feeling of that current generation?
Originally posted by "Olyuzi":
Should the Bush administration have listed Operation Blessing (a Pat Robertson controlled charity) on the FEMA website immediately after the hurricane, as one of the three major charities to donate monies to? |
If they got the job done...sure why not. The Salvation Army has rendered immense amount of aid in various crisis. Is it right not to list them for the sole reason they're of faith. Many places will refuse to list them.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
I don't have such an argument with Christianity per se, but I will take every jab I can get in at self-righteous hypocrisy. |
Funny, Jesus essentially did the same thing. Pointed out the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his time. In fact, it's the one group he consistently criticized.
Originally posted by "frychikn":
I don't believe that religions should be exempt from taxation at any level. They can certainly afford to pay their fair share of taxes, and because they don't, they are being indirectly subsidized by those individuals and entities who do. |
So now we want to tax churches and religious entities while at the same time not let their members vote their beliefs. Ahem...and this is good why? Is it simply because you hate religion?
Originally posted by "milo655321":
I was giving a broad example based upon Deuteronomy 22:11. Address the underlying theme of the example as Olyuzi requested, please. |
Please re-iterate, kinda lost tract of the original question in the thread.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
What dogmatic behavior? What evidence are you accusing mainstream scientist of ignoring? |
Putting a pygmy african in a zoo as an exhibit to demonstrate the evolution of apes, to africans to white man. How is that for dogma?
Originally posted by "milo655321":
If you want to add a religious element to the public debate, it should be your added burden to give evidence that your religion is the correct religion. Evidence for the existence of an eternal soul would be a good start. |
But I do give scientific and civil reasons against abortion. So do numerous opponents of abortion. The fact, that our religious beliefs also oppose it does not diminish our scientific and non-religious arguments. And if the fact that most members of a faith agree on the view point of pro-life. That does not negate it the other arguments repeatedly made and ignored.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
When you can tell me when Christianity stopped being a cult and became a religion I think you’ll have your answers. |
Okay, I'm rather confused on this one. Cult vs Religion. (Usually a cult in religious terms is a religion or branch of a religion that is deemed by the greater populace to be off-based or harmful.) I don't see how it relates.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
I’ve never said that a religious person should not be allowed to vote for or against abortion. Where did you get that? |
I get it from the basis that I keep seeing people say that people should not vote based on their religious beliefs. Who says they are.... second, who says they're not in said religious belief simply because their general belief set most adhere's and matches that group.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
But if the only argument offered is a religious argument, then it should be the burden of the person bringing the religious argument to show that theirs is the correct religion. |
Agreed. (Hence my agreement to eradicate the blue laws. And even the issues of God in pledge & money.) But for the record as repeated in most of the top moral issues of today (abortion, stem-cell research, etc.) there are sound arguments.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
So you would say that morals exist apart from god? |
Only as they apply to a particular social group. That means...that our society my have morals. But the next society over may have a very different set of morals.
Originally posted by "BrennanOB":
I have a freind who runs a lab at U.C.Berkeley. He raises yeast. Does stuff to them, messes with their DNA, exposes them to pathogens, ect. |
Sounds like Intelligent Design to me... *lol*
There are actually adherants to Intelligent Design who even support evolution. "Theistic Evolutionists". Who believe that such may be code written by God and implemented. But the key is that the initial creation (of which no scientific theory has explained either) was by intent from God. And some theorize that the changes were programmed in by God. And there are others who are total "6-day creationists".
"It is pretty obvious that evolution exerts it's influence on simple life forms and domesticated animals"
There is also a difference from "breeding" and "evolution". With breeding, the genetic code already contains the necessary abilities within it to adapt. And one is simply reducing the instruction set toward a dominant focus. In evolution, one is creating instruction set and DNA coding that did not exist beforehand.
I being a programmer, understand the re-use of code, objects, etc. And the same code can be found in many of my programs. Some small some large. Some old and some new. Code re-use is extremely common in programming. Likewise, i would venture to say the same regarding DNA. But for the code to be written...a programmer is required. Likewise, there are those who believe God did the programming.
And for the record, I am very much supportive of the big bang. Very little with the big bang is in conflict with Scriptures. Even the matters of time is largely a moot point when you realize it's all relative to mass and velocity. And varies greatly from point to point.
Originally posted by "keegbow":
Same religious fanatics that cause wars all over the world throughout history. |
Mind you, one does not need to be religious to start a war. Many an atheist and communist nation went to war. ;)
Hence, I state "extreme dogmatic beliefs" as opposed to just discriminating against the religious.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 08:06:49 PM · #581 |
Originally posted by "frychikn":
I don't believe that religions should be exempt from taxation at any level. They can certainly afford to pay their fair share of taxes, and because they don't, they are being indirectly subsidized by those individuals and entities who do.
Reply by theSaj:
<<< So now we want to tax churches and religious entities while at the same time not let their members vote their beliefs. Ahem...and this is good why? Is it simply because you hate religion? >>>
Please point out to me where in my post I said that members of religious entities should not be allowed to vote their beliefs? |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 11:09:44 PM · #582 |
From DemocracyNow
"FEMA Scandal Widens as Internal E-mails Are Made Public
More details have emerged depicting the extent of the neglect and irresponsibility of former FEMA Director Michael Brown in his roll in the scandal of the government's handling of Hurricane Katrina. On Thursday, FEMA official Marty Bahamonde testified in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. He was the first official from the agency to arrive in New Orleans ahead of Katrina. In the midst of the chaos and horror of the hurricane's aftermath, Bahamonde sent a dire e-mail to Michael Brown saying victims had no food and were dying. No response came from Brown. Instead, less than three hours later, an aide to Brown sent an e-mail saying her boss wanted to go on a television program that night. But first, the aide said, Brown needed at least an hour to eat dinner at a Baton Rouge restaurant, writing, "He needs much more than 20 or 30 minutes." Some 19 pages of internal FEMA e-mails revealed Thursday show Bahamonde gave regular updates to people in contact with Brown as early as August 28, the day before Katrina hit. They appear to contradict Brown, who has said he was not fully aware of the conditions until days after the storm hit. Bahamonde arrived on Aug. 27 and was the only FEMA official at the scene until August 30. Subsequent e-mails told of an increasingly desperate situation at the New Orleans Superdome, where tens of thousands of evacuees were piled in. Bahamonde spent two nights there with the evacuees. On August 31, he e-mailed Brown saying, "estimates are many will die within hours." He described the situation as "past critical." It was just moments after that email that Michael Brown's press secretary, Sharon Worthy, wrote colleagues to complain that the FEMA director needed more time to eat dinner. Worthy wrote, "Restaurants are getting busy...We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you."
Washington Post article |
|
|
|
10/22/2005 01:39:07 AM · #583 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by "frychikn":
I don't believe that religions should be exempt from taxation at any level. They can certainly afford to pay their fair share of taxes, and because they don't, they are being indirectly subsidized by those individuals and entities who do.
Reply by theSaj:
<<< So now we want to tax churches and religious entities while at the same time not let their members vote their beliefs. Ahem...and this is good why? Is it simply because you hate religion? >>>
Please point out to me where in my post I said that members of religious entities should not be allowed to vote their beliefs? |
As much of this debate has focused on whether people of faith should be able to vote based or in accordance with their faith. Hence my comment |
|
|
|
10/22/2005 06:16:03 AM · #584 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by "frychikn":
I don't believe that religions should be exempt from taxation at any level. They can certainly afford to pay their fair share of taxes, and because they don't, they are being indirectly subsidized by those individuals and entities who do.
Reply by theSaj:
<<< So now we want to tax churches and religious entities while at the same time not let their members vote their beliefs. Ahem...and this is good why? Is it simply because you hate religion? >>>
Please point out to me where in my post I said that members of religious entities should not be allowed to vote their beliefs? |
As much of this debate has focused on whether people of faith should be able to vote based or in accordance with their faith. Hence my comment |
This comment/question took a MONTH to answer! Aren't some arguments better left when they obviously are no longer creating interest and worthwhile comment?
It may have been better for Olyuzi 's article to have been the start of a new thread.
Pauline
|
|
|
|
04/14/2006 04:36:53 PM · #585 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
theSaj, as I posted earlier, that document is filled with loopholes that allow the 2 people who signed it, Lynn and Dick Cheney, to make modifications to it without any approval of a 3rd party. And I also posted the question of why he has not cashed in any of that stock and made donations with it. |
Apparently, the Cheneys knuckled under in response to your allegations.
In a Reuter's News Service Report (ref here):
"The Cheneys' adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006, which his office said was largely the result of the exercise by an independent gift administrator of stock options that had been irrevocably set aside in 2001 for charity.
The Cheneys had donated $6,869,655 to charity in 2005 from the exercise of these stock options under the terms of their gift agreement and from Mrs. Cheney's royalties from three historical books for young people." |
|
|
|
04/14/2006 04:44:39 PM · #586 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Series of posts. |
You just get back from vacation or something?
Message edited by author 2006-04-14 16:44:52. |
|
|
|
04/14/2006 10:05:29 PM · #587 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Series of posts. |
You just get back from vacation or something? |
Well, no, I didn't just get back from vacation, but without more detail, I can't refute the nebulous "something". That being said, I suppose that my answer is yes to "or something" - though, truth be known, my understanding of "something" may not match your understanding of "something". |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 01:48:08 AM · #588 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, no, I didn't just get back from vacation, but without more detail, I can't refute the nebulous "something". That being said, I suppose that my answer is yes to "or something" - though, truth be known, my understanding of "something" may not match your understanding of "something". |
Hakuna Matata! There's nothing to refute. I was just (excuse my French) curieux.
I am expansive; my understanding of the meaning of the word "something" is broad. Well, isn't that something?
(... perhaps posting after half a bottle of wine over dinner at a friend's home isn't the wisest idea ... Cheers!) |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 06:24:09 AM · #589 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Watching the news, a good portion of New Orleans, and surrounding cities and counties, are severely damaged...people are now without homes, lost lives, loved ones, businesses, vehicles, and other possessions.
Why are a good portion of our troops over in some other country when they could be here helping to cut trees or stop the looting or help rebuild people's homes or save peoples' lives.
It's ridiculous! |
because the USA owns the oil in USA but not in Iraq, that's why the US troops are in Iraq to take possession of their oil.
Iraq is the second biggest oilproducer in the world, if the US succeede in their task of claiming the Iraqi oil, then the USA might come close to being the most powerful country in the world, but as it ts now, they don't even come close ;)
|
|
|
|
04/17/2006 04:13:44 PM · #590 |
I just must respond to the last post as this is the same tired excuse you hear from people who are ignorant of the facts or just find it easiest to rely on hearsay and conjecture. Conspiracy theories are always more exciting that fact.
Educate yourself before you expatiate on falsities. The SECOND "biggest" oil producer in the world is Russia (with Saudia Arabia being number one) and the third... hold on to your pants is... THE UNITED STATES! Iraq is number 14, again, that is 14. By the way, I didn't make these numbers up - it is quite easy to do a little research and find who the "biggest" oil producers and consumers are.
I am now officially off of my soapbox. |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 07:06:46 PM · #591 |
Reserves are more relevant than current production:
1. Saudi Arabia
2. Canada
3. Iran
4. Iraq
5. Kuwait
according to the US Dept. of Energy figures
Questions of which one will be invaded next and how much Tim Horton's will be liberated are of course, totally off topic.
Message edited by author 2006-04-17 19:08:20. |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 07:27:53 PM · #592 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Reserves are more relevant than current production:
1. Saudi Arabia
2. Canada
3. Iran
4. Iraq
5. Kuwait
according to the US Dept. of Energy figures
Questions of which one will be invaded next and how much Tim Horton's will be liberated are of course, totally off topic. |
Maybe if they make the Tim Horton's strong enough it can qualify as sludge that can be refined?
|
|
|
|
04/17/2006 08:31:43 PM · #593 |
Since this is a rant forum, I'll rant.
By way of context, I am a life-long Republican. My father was a republican. His father too. Before that I don't think there were republicans, but i digress.
I voted for George ... twice.
I now regret my vote and wish we could remove him from office. Give us the European system of no-confidence-and-call-for-new-elections.
I am disappointed in George ... kind of like being 7 and catching your 11-year-old sister behind the garage smoking. I am disappointed in the honesty and integrity of his administration. I am disappointed in his administration's grasp of the world we live in. I am disappointed in their attempts to project US power where it really doesn't belong. I am disappointed in their failure to work collaboratively in the world.
And I am embarrassed by this dufus (if English isn't your first language ... this is not a complimentary aphorism!) every time he opens his mouth.
In this country we have a tradition of settling political disagreements without violence, but we also lack the protocols and mechanisms to remove this nutcase from office without serious disruption of the government process.
In my view he needs to be removed. He's wrong on energy, on polution, on privacy, on education, on human rights, on world economics, on church/state issues, on ... well I could go on and on.
Having established what I don't like, I just wish the Democrats offered more genuine leadership and that any party/leader could offer something I could support. |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 07:13:52 PM · #594 |
Came across this interesting quote about George today ...
... a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States … He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation … For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences ... For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."
--Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence (1776) |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 01:06:57 PM · #595 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
theSaj, as I posted earlier, that document is filled with loopholes that allow the 2 people who signed it, Lynn and Dick Cheney, to make modifications to it without any approval of a 3rd party. And I also posted the question of why he has not cashed in any of that stock and made donations with it. |
Apparently, the Cheneys knuckled under in response to your allegations.
In a Reuter's News Service Report (ref here):
"The Cheneys' adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006, which his office said was largely the result of the exercise by an independent gift administrator of stock options that had been irrevocably set aside in 2001 for charity.
The Cheneys had donated $6,869,655 to charity in 2005 from the exercise of these stock options under the terms of their gift agreement and from Mrs. Cheney's royalties from three historical books for young people." |
So, hello again, RonB!!.
Are you implying in your defense of the Cheneys that everything, or most, of what they did in regard to their charitable giving - or to their continued income from Halliburton - was above board, or ethical, or not for personal gain?
It sure looks like that is what you are implying.
You might be interested in this excerpt from a diary in Daily Kos, on the specifics of that huge 2005 "donation to charity" that the ethical, above board and not interested in personal gain Cheneys made:
By exploiting a law that was meant for people to donate to Katrina relief, Cheney was able to net a $2,000,000 tax refund.
At least half, if not more if this refund was solely due to their exploiting of this law.
In order to do this, they had to write a personal check for over $2,000,000 at the end of 2005.
None of the donations were to any Katrina relief organizations.
The donations were from income related to Halliburton, which Cheney supposedly had no financial ties to.
In any other year, they still would have received a few hundred thousand in tax refunds from this "non-financial tie" to Halliburton, if they donated the proceeds to charity.
In each of the prior three years, their donations were never more than 4%-5% of their 2005 totals, the only year that this law applies to.
Once again, they flat out lie in their press release by obscuring the million or so that they personally benefited from this transaction.
The timing, while not illegal, is extremely self serving and shady, especially in light of the fact that they should not be benefiting financially from any ties to Halliburton.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 12:20:36 AM · #596 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
theSaj, as I posted earlier, that document is filled with loopholes that allow the 2 people who signed it, Lynn and Dick Cheney, to make modifications to it without any approval of a 3rd party. And I also posted the question of why he has not cashed in any of that stock and made donations with it. |
Apparently, the Cheneys knuckled under in response to your allegations.
In a Reuter's News Service Report (ref here):
"The Cheneys' adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006, which his office said was largely the result of the exercise by an independent gift administrator of stock options that had been irrevocably set aside in 2001 for charity.
The Cheneys had donated $6,869,655 to charity in 2005 from the exercise of these stock options under the terms of their gift agreement and from Mrs. Cheney's royalties from three historical books for young people." |
So, hello again, RonB!!.
Are you implying in your defense of the Cheneys that everything, or most, of what they did in regard to their charitable giving - or to their continued income from Halliburton - was above board, or ethical, or not for personal gain? |
Yes. Except for your implication that THEY continue to derive income from Halliburton, that's just what I'm implying.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
It sure looks like that is what you are implying. |
Probably because, with the exception noted, that is what I am implying.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
You might be interested in this excerpt from a diary in Daily Kos, on the specifics of that huge 2005 "donation to charity" that the ethical, above board and not interested in personal gain Cheneys made:
By exploiting a law that was meant for people to donate to Katrina relief, Cheney was able to net a $2,000,000 tax refund. |
Right effect ( they did get a nearly 2 million dollar refund ) - but, unfortunately, wrong cause ( it was definitely NOT because of exploiting the law, as I shall show later ).
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
At least half, if not more if this refund was solely due to their exploiting of this law. |
Wrong again - very, very wrong, as I will show later.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
In order to do this, they had to write a personal check for over $2,000,000 at the end of 2005. |
So let me get this straight, in order to get a $1,938,930 tax REFUND, the Cheneys had to DONATE $2,331,400 of their own money, ABOVE and BEYOND the net income / donation from the sale of stock? Leaving them with a personl profit of HOW MUCH? Let's see, refund of $1,938,930 minus additional personal donation of $2,331,400 equals how much? Uh, that would be a personal EXPENSE of $392,470 according to my calculator - not a PROFIT at all!
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
None of the donations were to any Katrina relief organizations. |
So, what does it matter if no personal profit resulted? What's your point?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The donations were from income related to Halliburton, which Cheney supposedly had no financial ties to. |
Not "supposedly" - the Cheneys did NOT have financial ties to Halliburton in regards to these proceeds. And although the income itself was related to Halliburton stock options held in trust, it was NOT income to the Cheneys - since the trust stipulated that the net proceeds were to go to charity. So, what's the point in bringing up Halliburton? Are you implying that the Cheney's still have a financial interest in that company even though they do not? And, if so, why?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
In any other year, they still would have received a few hundred thousand in tax refunds from this "non-financial tie" to Halliburton, if they donated the proceeds to charity. |
Correct, except for the word "STILL". Since NONE of their tax refund was related to Halliburton, STILL is completely non-applicable. And, if they made a similar personal donation to erase the difference between net and gross as they did in 2005, they would STILL not have made a profit from the transaction.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
In each of the prior three years, their donations were never more than 4%-5% of their 2005 totals, the only year that this law applies to. |
What's your point? The law permitted them to make LARGER donations to charity in 2005 - larger donations with NO PERSONAL GAIN? And you have a problem with that?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Once again, they flat out lie in their press release by obscuring the million or so that they personally benefited from this transaction. |
The only lies I see are those made in the statement that the Cheneys lied. The official press release contains this paragraph ( emphasis mine ) ( you can read it for yourself here )
"To enable the gift administrator to maximize the charitable gifts in 2005, the year in which the options were exercised, the Cheneys wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400. That amount, combined with the net proceeds from the stock options, was given to the three designated charities by the gift administrator. As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930. This refund returns the Cheneys to a neutral position of no personal financial benefit or financial detriment resulting from the transactions under the Gift Administration Agreement. Thus, the Cheneys received no financial benefit from the stock options. The transactions were tax neutral to the Cheneys. The amount of taxes paid by the Cheneys from their income, other than the income from the exercise of the stock options, was the equivalent of what they would have paid if the options had not been exercised."
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The timing, while not illegal, is extremely self serving and shady, especially in light of the fact that they should not be benefiting financially from any ties to Halliburton. |
Actually, it was not SELF serving at all, since they derived absolutely NO financial benefit from their donations to charity in 2005 - in fact they endured a financial LOSS. And, they did not benefit AT ALL from any ties to Haliburton.
Please try to avoid the Daily Kos in the future, or at least do some independent research to verify what you read there. That site has a great tendency to sway the thinking of those who are easily charmed by lies. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:28:02 AM · #597 |
Okay, in a fair fight, facts vs inuendo? Facts win! Time to give it up!
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
theSaj, as I posted earlier, that document is filled with loopholes that allow the 2 people who signed it, Lynn and Dick Cheney, to make modifications to it without any approval of a 3rd party. And I also posted the question of why he has not cashed in any of that stock and made donations with it. |
Apparently, the Cheneys knuckled under in response to your allegations.
In a Reuter's News Service Report (ref here):
"The Cheneys' adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006, which his office said was largely the result of the exercise by an independent gift administrator of stock options that had been irrevocably set aside in 2001 for charity.
The Cheneys had donated $6,869,655 to charity in 2005 from the exercise of these stock options under the terms of their gift agreement and from Mrs. Cheney's royalties from three historical books for young people." |
So, hello again, RonB!!.
Are you implying in your defense of the Cheneys that everything, or most, of what they did in regard to their charitable giving - or to their continued income from Halliburton - was above board, or ethical, or not for personal gain? |
Yes. Except for your implication that THEY continue to derive income from Halliburton, that's just what I'm implying.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
It sure looks like that is what you are implying. |
Probably because, with the exception noted, that is what I am implying.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
You might be interested in this excerpt from a diary in Daily Kos, on the specifics of that huge 2005 "donation to charity" that the ethical, above board and not interested in personal gain Cheneys made:
By exploiting a law that was meant for people to donate to Katrina relief, Cheney was able to net a $2,000,000 tax refund. |
Right effect ( they did get a nearly 2 million dollar refund ) - but, unfortunately, wrong cause ( it was definitely NOT because of exploiting the law, as I shall show later ).
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
At least half, if not more if this refund was solely due to their exploiting of this law. |
Wrong again - very, very wrong, as I will show later.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
In order to do this, they had to write a personal check for over $2,000,000 at the end of 2005. |
So let me get this straight, in order to get a $1,938,930 tax REFUND, the Cheneys had to DONATE $2,331,400 of their own money, ABOVE and BEYOND the net income / donation from the sale of stock? Leaving them with a personl profit of HOW MUCH? Let's see, refund of $1,938,930 minus additional personal donation of $2,331,400 equals how much? Uh, that would be a personal EXPENSE of $392,470 according to my calculator - not a PROFIT at all!
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
None of the donations were to any Katrina relief organizations. |
So, what does it matter if no personal profit resulted? What's your point?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The donations were from income related to Halliburton, which Cheney supposedly had no financial ties to. |
Not "supposedly" - the Cheneys did NOT have financial ties to Halliburton in regards to these proceeds. And although the income itself was related to Halliburton stock options held in trust, it was NOT income to the Cheneys - since the trust stipulated that the net proceeds were to go to charity. So, what's the point in bringing up Halliburton? Are you implying that the Cheney's still have a financial interest in that company even though they do not? And, if so, why?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
In any other year, they still would have received a few hundred thousand in tax refunds from this "non-financial tie" to Halliburton, if they donated the proceeds to charity. |
Correct, except for the word "STILL". Since NONE of their tax refund was related to Halliburton, STILL is completely non-applicable. And, if they made a similar personal donation to erase the difference between net and gross as they did in 2005, they would STILL not have made a profit from the transaction.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
In each of the prior three years, their donations were never more than 4%-5% of their 2005 totals, the only year that this law applies to. |
What's your point? The law permitted them to make LARGER donations to charity in 2005 - larger donations with NO PERSONAL GAIN? And you have a problem with that?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Once again, they flat out lie in their press release by obscuring the million or so that they personally benefited from this transaction. |
The only lies I see are those made in the statement that the Cheneys lied. The official press release contains this paragraph ( emphasis mine ) ( you can read it for yourself here )
"To enable the gift administrator to maximize the charitable gifts in 2005, the year in which the options were exercised, the Cheneys wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400. That amount, combined with the net proceeds from the stock options, was given to the three designated charities by the gift administrator. As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930. This refund returns the Cheneys to a neutral position of no personal financial benefit or financial detriment resulting from the transactions under the Gift Administration Agreement. Thus, the Cheneys received no financial benefit from the stock options. The transactions were tax neutral to the Cheneys. The amount of taxes paid by the Cheneys from their income, other than the income from the exercise of the stock options, was the equivalent of what they would have paid if the options had not been exercised."
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The timing, while not illegal, is extremely self serving and shady, especially in light of the fact that they should not be benefiting financially from any ties to Halliburton. |
Actually, it was not SELF serving at all, since they derived absolutely NO financial benefit from their donations to charity in 2005 - in fact they endured a financial LOSS. And, they did not benefit AT ALL from any ties to Haliburton.
Please try to avoid the Daily Kos in the future, or at least do some independent research to verify what you read there. That site has a great tendency to sway the thinking of those who are easily charmed by lies. |
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 02:44:03 PM · #598 |
Here is the whole article - readers can make up their own minds about "facts vs innuendo", whether Cheney misused the Katrina relief charity law, whether they walked away with more money intheir pocket than without abusing the Katrina charity law, and whether dkos is trustworthy or not.
In any case, continue your solid work work defending the indefensible. It's a nobel cause.
Cheney's shady charitable contributions net $2 million refund
by clammyc
Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:54:45 AM PDT
Last week, Darth Cheney released his 2005 tax return, and while this type of thing doesn't generally make waves in the news unless it is a Democrat who is releasing the return, there was something that jumped out at me which prompted me to do a bit of digging, where I found this snippet that led me to do a bit more digging.
Being the tax geek that I am, I noticed something that caught my eye as, shall we say, "interesting" - charitable contributions in excess of $6,800,000 on income of just under $9,000,000. For those who are not familiar with tax rules, let's just say that this is a very high, an unusually high number.
While this is not illegal, by exploiting a loophole in the Katrina tax relief laws passed regarding charitable donations, Dead Eye Dick was able to obtain a refund of at least $1,000,000 MORE than he would be able to get in any other year.
The best part? None of the charities were Katrina related at all.
More below:
clammyc's diary :: ::
As part of the overall Katrina relief laws passed, there was a clause regarding charitable donations. This obviously was to spur people to make donations that would benefit victims of Katrina, but was not overly specific. As we already know, Barbara Bush directed her donations to her son Neil's company, which she was an investor in. According to the law passed last year we have the following:
Encourages cash donations by individuals. Under current law, individuals may deduct charitable donations up to 50 percent of their adjusted gross income. Deductions for charitable donations are further limited by the phase-out of itemized deductions. Under the proposal, cash donations to charities are exempt from the 50-percent income limitation and the phase-out of itemized deductions if the donations are made before January 2006.
What this means is that, except for last year, one could only make donations that were up to half their income. Not only that, but if your income was over $146,000, the deductions would be "phased out" until you could only deduct 20% of the donation. But for last year, there was no limit on (1) how much you could donate, and (2) there was no "phase out" of these donations.
So by looking at Dick's return, you can see that he took these deductions for 77% of his income, and had no limit as to how much he could deduct.
The donations were from the exercise of Halliburton stock options which, back in 2001, were directed to be donated to three charities. This I don't have a problem with (other than the fact that he has repeatedly lied about not haveing any financial ties to Halliburton), since it does (sort of) take the control of the Halliburton money out of his hands. And in any other year, while he would have received a nice size tax break from the donation, it would have been something that is available to anyone.
But, just "coincidentally" the following things happened in 2005:
The stock options were exercised (there was no direction as to what year or when the options were exercised), resulting in nearly $7,000,000 in income to the Cheney's;
Darth Cheney actually wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400 in order to "maximize the charitable gifts in 2005".
Now, while the price of Halliburton stock has gone up significantly in the past year and a half, if the income from exercising the options were donated to charity, then the timing wouldn't matter to Cheney, other than the tax benefit. In fact, there was no rush to exercise the options, since they don't expire until 2007, at the earliest. Not to mention the lies that Dickie has told about severing his ties to Halliburton, as you can see from the link above.
Confused yet? Well, don't feel bad because the White House is referring questions about Cheney's tax return to their tax lawyers.
You may think that this isn't too unusual, but when you look at what Darth Cheney donated to charity in years past, you will see that it looks pretty sketchy, given the timing and the supposed "non-impact" on their personal financial situation.
In 2004, their donations were around $300,000, mainly from Lynne's book proceeds.
In 2003, their donations were around $320,000, also mainly from Lynne's book proceeds.
In 2002, their donations were around $120,000, you guessed it, mainly from Lynne's book proceeds.
On top of that, the White House Press Release just flat out lies about this not impacting their tax situation:
To enable the gift administrator to maximize the charitable gifts in 2005, the year in which the options were exercised, the Cheneys wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400. That amount, combined with the net proceeds from the stock options, was given to the three designated charities by the gift administrator. As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930. This refund returns the Cheneys to a neutral position of no personal financial benefit or financial detriment resulting from the transactions under the Gift Administration Agreement. Thus, the Cheneys received no financial benefit from the stock options. The transactions were tax neutral to the Cheneys. The amount of taxes paid by the Cheneys from their income, other than the income from the exercise of the stock options, was the equivalent of what they would have paid if the options had not been exercised.
Technically, the part that is underlined is correct in that they would "otherwise" be in the same position financially. But there is no income to them by just holding onto stock options without exercising them. And based on a 35% tax rate, the exercise of the options and the ability to have no limit on the tax benefit from their donation for 2005 ONLY would give them a cool $1,000,000. Not to mention the fact that they would STILL get a refund of $300,000 - $400,000 on their donation in any other year.
So, other than the cool million or so that they netted, there is no financial impact to them.
Once again, lies about not benefiting financially from Halliburton. Whether they donated the money or not, they are benefiting in a big way from either a tax standpoint or from an income standpoint. Not to mention the fact that it must be nice to have over $2,000,000 sitting around so you can write a check in December in order to get a refund of pretty much all of it a couple of months later.
So, to bring this all back and to summarize, we have this:
By exploiting a law that was meant for people to donate to Katrina relief, Cheney was able to net a $2,000,000 tax refund.
At least half, if not more if this refund was solely due to their exploiting of this law.
In order to do this, they had to write a personal check for over $2,000,000 at the end of 2005.
None of the donations were to any Katrina relief organizations.
The donations were from income related to Halliburton, which Cheney supposedly had no financial ties to.
In any other year, they still would have received a few hundred thousand in tax refunds from this "non-financial tie" to Halliburton, if they donated the proceeds to charity.
In each of the prior three years, their donations were never more than 4%-5% of their 2005 totals, the only year that this law applies to.
Once again, they flat out lie in their press release by obscuring the million or so that they personally benefited from this transaction.
The timing, while not illegal, is extremely self serving and shady, especially in light of the fact that they should not be benefiting financially from any ties to Halliburton.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 02:54:18 PM · #599 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Actually, it was not SELF serving at all, since they derived absolutely NO financial benefit from their donations to charity in 2005 - in fact they endured a financial LOSS. And, they did not benefit AT ALL from any ties to Haliburton. |
The previous article I just posted shows that you left out one little figure. And that is the 7 million dollars in options he received and needed to pay taxes on.
He writes a check for 2 million, and gets 2 million back. Sweet.
Well, just read the whole article....
Originally posted by RonB:
Please try to avoid the Daily Kos in the future, or at least do some independent research to verify what you read there. That site has a great tendency to sway the thinking of those who are easily charmed by lies. |
Hey Ron
Please try to avoid the White House Press office in the future, or at least do some independent research to verify what you read there. That site has a great tendency to sway the thinking of those who are easily charmed by lies. ;D
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 14:55:16. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 07:41:45 PM · #600 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Actually, it was not SELF serving at all, since they derived absolutely NO financial benefit from their donations to charity in 2005 - in fact they endured a financial LOSS. And, they did not benefit AT ALL from any ties to Haliburton. |
The previous article I just posted shows that you left out one little figure. And that is the 7 million dollars in options he received and needed to pay taxes on.
He writes a check for 2 million, and gets 2 million back. Sweet.
Well, just read the whole article.... |
You still don't get it do you?
First of all, even the GROSS proceeds from the exercise didn't amount to 7 million dollars. That being said, I'll use that figure for illustrative purposes.
The 7 million dollars in options went straight thru the Cheney's to the charities, minus taxes that were withheld from the proceeds in the amount of around 2 million dollars. Yes, the proceeds were subject to withholding, since, until actually given to charity, they were considered as regular income. Because of the withholding, the charities received only 5 million dollars NET. When the Katrina law was passed, the Cheney's realized that THEY would benefit at tax time by getting a VERY large portion of that withholding back, since the 50% rule limiting charitable deductions would NOT be in effect on April 15th. Not wishing to profit PERSONALLY from that change in the law, the Cheney's made an additional donation of 2.3 million dollars, in 2005, out of their own pockets to effectively PRE-PAY to the charities, the refund that they estimated that they would receive from the over-withholding for taxes. They probably did this for three reasons: a) they did not want to make the charities wait for the money until after the refund was received, b) they wanted to take advantage of the fact that they COULD give over 50% of their income without personal penalty in 2005 due to the Katrina law, and c) they did not want to give the left-wing press an opportunity to say ( for a year, until their 2006 tax return ) that the Cheney's personally profitted from the exercise of stock.
In short, the Cheney's both a) maximized the donation to charity from the exercise, and b) minimized the penalty to themselves from the exercise. Not to mention the fact that if they had NOT done so in 2005, they would have encountered personal penalties in the future due to the scaling down of charitable donation limits in the coming years. Namely, if there were 7 million dollars worth of option profits, and the charitable limit was only 1 million per year, it would take the Cheney's 7 years to exercise the options and make donations without personal penalty. Instead, they saw the opportunity to maximize giving and minimize penalty at the same time.
Tell me that you would NOT have done the same. With a straignt face. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 03:12:08 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 03:12:08 PM EDT.
|
