| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mrgybe wrote: | ...by Major Woody.
|
With a name like that, I bet his editor was named Eileen Dover. 
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pueno wrote: | | mrgybe wrote: | ...by Major Woody.
|
With a name like that, I bet his editor was named Eileen Dover.
. |
I am still laughing at "Phil McCracken". Hopefully Mr Gybe can shovel his deck, and get back on his Mac. There is a lot of good stuff happening out there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1392791.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some are interested in education:
| Quote: | BACKGROUND
501(c)(4) organizations include two types of organizations: (a) social welfare organizations, defined by statute as civic leagues or organizations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare; and (b) local associations of employees of which the net earnings are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. Learn more from the IRS.
501(c)(4) organizations are tax-exempt, but donations to them are not tax deductible and the identities of donors do not have to be disclosed. These organizations are allowed to engage in unlimited lobbying activities, and can engage in some campaign activity, as long as it is not their primary activity.
To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare. The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. |
https://www.independentsector.org/501c4_organizations
Perhaps more notable in the breach of such a limit--in the case of many churches and the Tea Party. Isn't where this started? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From USA Today:
| Quote: | WASHINGTON -- In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
The controversial, 3-year-old strategy to manage the increasing number of political groups seeking tax-exempt status came under fire Tuesday. The agency's own inspector general blamed IRS leadership for "ineffective management |
More at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/14/irs-gave-progressives-a-pass-tea-party-groups-put-on-hold/2159983/
On the page, there is a chart describing 501c3, 4, 5 & 6. It's clear that politics are a key element of many of these tax exempt organizations regardless of the ambiguous limitations defined in mac's post. Too bad his education didn't include 501C5 & 6 where political lobbying is the norm.
Lois Lerner is suppose to testify again on Wednesday. Some say she will talk, some say she will take the 5th again. Maybe we will learn something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: |
Lois Lerner is suppose to testify again on Wednesday. Some say she will talk, some say she will take the 5th again. Maybe we will learn something? |
Well we all know how that turned out, she took the 5th again, which she wouldn't have done, if she wasn't sitting on something incriminating.
Anyone surprised? Not me.
But instead of that, the MSM decided to focus on Issa's gavel, typical.
But back on the thread subject~
Senate Democrats feature Dr. Seuss in 14-hour talkathon on climate change
By Leslie Larson / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Tuesday, March 11, 2014, 9:54 AM
Dems took turns holding the Senate floor during the 14-hour talkathon that went from Monday night into Tuesday morning . Not only did talk of climate change seek to rail against the GOP, but the display was to counter the GOP’s use of the filibuster, recently carried out by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Four Democratic Senators facing tough reelections opted out of the talkathon.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) did take a page from Cruz’s epic soliloquy, reading a piece from Dr. Seuss’ “The Lorax” during his floor speech, saying the works by the Massachusetts native had become “popular” on the Senate floor.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-democrats-14-hour-talkathon-article-1.1717567#ixzz2vg0Vk6FN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The MSM, and many here, were all over Cruz for reading some Dr. Seuss, but not in this case........... crickets.
Funny how that seems to happen all the time, what's good for the Dems, isn't good for the Repubs., and visa-versa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NW...I have been following Darryl Issa since he brought us AAAAHNOLD, what a disaster that was. Issa is being termed out of his post , and has shown to be a champion of witch hunts, why in the world would Lois Lerner say anything? What does she have to gain in this non -story? In my biz I call it risk/reward.
NW - Btw- the reason the "MSM" cared about Cruz's filibuster was that it held up the debt ceiling, the Senate Dems didnt hold up anything, thats why nobody cares. If you need any more help understanding politics, let me know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| boggsman1 wrote: | | If you need any more help understanding politics, let me know. |
 You can't be serious  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
boggs said: | Quote: | | why in the world would Lois Lerner say anything? What does she have to gain in this non -story? In my biz I call it risk/reward. |
Isn't there another side to this coin. She may have little to gain by testifying, but she may also have a lot to lose. What I read was that there appeared to be an agreement to testify with immunity, but that fell through so she took the fifth. If it really is a non-story, why not testify and be done with it? Not testifying just leads to more and more speculation and the continuing drama, which seems counter productive if nothing is there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not taking sides here, but maybe worth reading.
From: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/08/Earth-is-safe-from-global-warming-say-the-men-who-put-man-on-the-moon
| Quote: | Earth is Safe From 'Global Warming' Say the Men Who Put Man on the Moon by James Delingpole 8 Mar 2014
The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world's recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 degrees C.
So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers - the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon - in a new report.
"It's an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA's name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming," says the project's leader Hal Doiron.
Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees - including seven astronauts - who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization's promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.
During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line. While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as "death trains" "no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species." Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment.
Doiron and his team now hope to set the record straight in a report called Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity For Use In Regulatory Decisions.
Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.
This is because, as scientists such as the Cato Institute's Pat Michaels have long argued, "climate sensitivity" (ie how the planet's temperature responds to CO2 emissions) is considerably lower than the IPCC's computer models project. So much so that it should be called "climate insensitivity", he believes.
Doiron is similarly skeptical of the computer models used by climate alarmists. He and his team argue that the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed because they don't agree with each other and don't agree with empirical data.
There is no empirical data indicating Anthropogenic Global Warming will produce catastrophic climate changes. AGW can only produce modest global warming, likely to be beneficial when CO2 benefits to crop production are considered.
Doiron says: "I believe in computer models. My whole career was about using computer models to make life or death decisions. In 1963 I had to use them to calculate whether, when the lunar module landed on a 12 degree slope it would fall over or not - and design the landing gear accordingly. But if you can't validate the models - and the IPCC can't - then don't use them to make critical decisions about the economy and the planet's future." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Techno...good points. But, currently its a non-story, and If Issa lathers up the righty press on another witch hunt, then it might become a story. Kind of like Benghazi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
