Republicans: continued

[Forty Two]

...I guess you don't understand the Man For All Seasons bit.

I understand it completely. The key phrase is: "Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake." Right?

I would too, if the law were adequate protection for my safety to begin with. The paradox of tolerance - in conjunction with historical precedence - indicates that it is not.

Seth might mention a lot of things. We can only make his arguments for him, since he is subject to a prior restraint and we are now safely protected from any chance at hearing it out directly.

Seth's suspension expired in September 2017. He is free to post in this forum any time he likes.

Once again, it says nothing about the law requiring vaccinations. The Man For All Seasons scene does not imply that a law mandating vaccinations would be improper in any way.

It might say something about the right to have and express an opinion ABOUT vaccinations. However, it certainly doesn't strike me as increasing my safety to have the government prohibit people from expressing opinions about the efficacy of State mandated medical procedures, medicines and/or vaccinations. The Devil turning round to face you, in that case, would be that there will or may come a time when something you oppose will become verboten to protest or oppose out loud.

And, sure, I am in full agreement with you and most others that vaccines work and are necessary, and should be required. However, my view on that is based on the facts, not authority or declaration or government decree. It's not unthinkable that an injection of a vaccine could have side effects or issues - it's not impossible. How do we know if a vaccine is safe? What if testing was done a new vaccine and it demonstrated a connection or correlation between it and a certain disease or condition? Should it be illegal to publicize that or talk about it?

I did not know that his suspension had an expiration. Fair enough.

[Hermit]

The Man For All Seasons scene does not imply that a law mandating vaccinations would be improper in any way.

You're right. The Man For All Seasons scene does not imply that a law mandating vaccinations would be improper in any way. However, the fight against compulsory vaccination can be seen as a fight against the thin edge of incipient tyranny. If governments are permitted to force immunisation for the good of society, they will finish up with the right to perform summary executions of libertarians, billionaires and billionaire aspirants in the same grounds. It's the slippery slope/thin end of the wedge argument I expect avid The Blaze/Daily Caller/Breitbart/etc readers and Jordan Peterson acolytes to make. First they came for those who refused to vaccinate their children, then they came for those who refused to use prescribed personal pronouns...

[Brian Peacock]

Everyone should be free to incubate virulent contagions if they so choose.

[Seabass]

Not enough money in US politics? Don't worry, Republicans can fix that!

How the IRS Gave Up Fighting Political Dark Money Groups
Six years after it was excoriated for allegedly targeting conservative organizations, the agency has largely given up on regulating an entire category of nonprofits. The result: More dark money gushes into the political system.
https://www.propublica.org/article/irs- ... regulation

...

Such spending is legal because of a massive loophole. Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code allows organizations to make independent expenditures on politics while concealing their donors’ names — as long as politics isn’t the organization’s “primary activity.” The Internal Revenue Service has the daunting task of trying to determine when nonprofits in that category, known colloquially as C4s, violate that vague standard.

But the IRS’ attempts to police this class of nonprofits have almost completely broken down, a ProPublica investigation reveals. Since 2015, thousands of complaints have streamed in — from citizens, public interest groups, IRS agents, government officials and more — that C4s are abusing the rules. But the agency has not stripped a single organization of its tax-exempt status for breaking spending rules during that period. (A handful of groups have had their status revoked for failing to file financial statements for three consecutive years.)

Most cases do not even reach the IRS committee created to examine them. Between September 2017 and March 2019, the committee didn’t receive a single complaint to review according to one former and one current IRS employee who worked closely with the committee, even as at least 2,000 warranted its consideration. (The IRS disputes this.) The standards are almost as permissive when organizations apply for C4 status in the first place. In 2017, for example, the IRS rejected only three out of 1,487 applications.

The IRS’ abdication of oversight stems from a trio of causes. It started with a surge in the number of politically oriented C4s. That was exacerbated by the IRS’ almost comically cumbersome process for examining C4s accused of breaching political limits; the process requires a half-dozen layers of approvals and referrals merely to start an investigation. That is abetted by years of IRS staff attrition and loss of expertise that was then compounded by steady budget reductions by Congress starting in 2010. The division that oversees nonprofits, known as the “exempt organization” section, shrank from 942 staffers in 2010 to 585 in 2018, according to the IRS.

...

But how does one define an organization’s “primary activity”? For decades, the point was largely moot. Big funders used other means to funnel money to campaigns. Then came a series of Supreme Court rulings, the best known of which was the Citizens United decision in 2010, that loosened restrictions on political contributions. In that case, the court concluded that, like people, corporations and unions could spend unlimited funds for elections.

The Citizens United decision was followed by a surge in the formation of politically focused organizations seeking IRS approval as C4s. In 2012, at least $250 million passed through such groups and into efforts to elect candidates, an 80-fold increase from eight years prior.

continued: https://www.propublica.org/article/irs- ... regulation

[JimC]

Seth's suspension expired in September 2017. He is free to post in this forum any time he likes.

[Joe]

Could he be too busy working to troll, or just "entertaining" a new set of people?

[pErvinalia]

I can't imagine that he's not somewhere writing offensive walls of text.

[Hermit]

Could he be too busy working to troll, or just "entertaining" a new set of people?

He posts at the Daily Caller, his own Facebook page and writes articles for The Complete Colorado.

[JimC]

Could he be too busy working to troll, or just "entertaining" a new set of people?

He posts at the Daily Caller, his own Facebook page and writes articles for The Complete Colorado.

Didn't know you were stalking him...

[Hermit]

Could he be too busy working to troll, or just "entertaining" a new set of people?

He posts at the Daily Caller, his own Facebook page and writes articles for The Complete Colorado.

Didn't know you were stalking him...

Joe's to blame for that.

[Seabass]

Fucking psychos.

Republicans push anti-wind bills in several states as renewables grow increasingly popular
https://thinkprogress.org/renewables-wi ... 9b565ae22/

North Carolina is one of several states in which lawmakers are pushing new proposals to undercut wind energy. State Sen. Harry Brown (R) has long positioned himself as a wind power opponent and this legislative session he is pushing Senate Bill 377, the “Military Base Protection Act.”

The bill argues that wind farms pose a national security risk and uses Department of Defense maps to essentially outlaw wind farms built on land within 100 miles of the state’s coast. Brown has received support from fellow state Sens. Norman Sanderson (R) and Paul Newton (R), the latter of whom was previously an employee of Duke Energy, one of the country’s largest utilities.

But the military already has veto power over any projects that are deemed a national security risk. North Carolina’s Amazon Wind Farm, the first large-scale wind farm in the state, went through years of review and permitting studies, in addition to coordinating with the U.S. Navy and Department of Defense. Proponents of renewable energy say arguments about national security are just another way for fossil fuel interests to dissuade potential wind and solar investments in the state.

[pErvinalia]

What possible national security risk could a wind farm provide?

[Hermit]

wind turbines cause battleship cancer. FACT!

[Brian Peacock]

What possible national security risk could a wind farm provide?

It threatens the jobs of 50,000 workers in the coal industry. They must be protected because FREEDOM!!

[Joe]

Could he be too busy working to troll, or just "entertaining" a new set of people?

He posts at the Daily Caller, his own Facebook page and writes articles for The Complete Colorado.

Didn't know you were stalking him...

Joe's to blame for that.

I read his columns from time to time, generally when my local newspaper quotes him, but stalking him is your own initiative.