[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Your app for Mac needs an update - gtufano - Jan 22, 2020 - 11:36pm
 
Automotive Lust - ScottN - Jan 22, 2020 - 7:44pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - Jan 22, 2020 - 6:24pm
 
Impeachment Time: - KarmaKarma - Jan 22, 2020 - 5:44pm
 
RP and Sonos - jarro - Jan 22, 2020 - 5:04pm
 
Trump - R_P - Jan 22, 2020 - 4:32pm
 
Name My Band - Antigone - Jan 22, 2020 - 3:40pm
 
The Obituary Page - buddy - Jan 22, 2020 - 2:56pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - buddy - Jan 22, 2020 - 2:55pm
 
What Do You Want From RP? - buddy - Jan 22, 2020 - 2:53pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Jan 22, 2020 - 2:34pm
 
We need some new car names - haresfur - Jan 22, 2020 - 2:34pm
 
Movie Quote - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 22, 2020 - 10:32am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 22, 2020 - 7:12am
 
A Sad Day, Indeed - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 22, 2020 - 7:09am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Jan 22, 2020 - 6:25am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 22, 2020 - 6:12am
 
Goodnight everyone! - Proclivities - Jan 22, 2020 - 4:06am
 
songs that ROCK! - R_P - Jan 22, 2020 - 2:41am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Egctheow - Jan 22, 2020 - 1:14am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - BlueHeronDruid - Jan 21, 2020 - 11:33pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jan 21, 2020 - 10:37pm
 
ONE WORD - buddy - Jan 21, 2020 - 9:24pm
 
Democratic Party - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 21, 2020 - 9:07pm
 
Internet Addict?? - BlueHeronDruid - Jan 21, 2020 - 7:09pm
 
The Global War on Terror - R_P - Jan 21, 2020 - 3:54pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - jarro - Jan 21, 2020 - 3:21pm
 
What Did You See Today? - oldviolin - Jan 21, 2020 - 2:34pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Jan 21, 2020 - 2:26pm
 
Iran - R_P - Jan 21, 2020 - 12:33pm
 
A History of Violence - R_P - Jan 21, 2020 - 12:09pm
 
TWO WORDS - oldviolin - Jan 21, 2020 - 10:51am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Jan 21, 2020 - 9:44am
 
Baseball, anyone? - kcar - Jan 21, 2020 - 7:52am
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - buddy - Jan 21, 2020 - 7:38am
 
Classical Music - R_P - Jan 21, 2020 - 12:07am
 
Poetry Forum - ScottN - Jan 20, 2020 - 7:41pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Jan 20, 2020 - 6:34pm
 
Get the Quote - oldviolin - Jan 20, 2020 - 6:00pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jan 20, 2020 - 5:58pm
 
THREE WORDS - oldviolin - Jan 20, 2020 - 5:09pm
 
FOUR WORDS - oldviolin - Jan 20, 2020 - 5:06pm
 
Live Music - R_P - Jan 20, 2020 - 4:55pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Jan 20, 2020 - 3:01pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Jan 20, 2020 - 2:56pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 20, 2020 - 2:46pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Coaxial - Jan 20, 2020 - 11:45am
 
Surfing! - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 20, 2020 - 9:21am
 
What are you listening to now? - Lazy8 - Jan 20, 2020 - 8:44am
 
Stream Stopping - Multiple Platforms - Chuck1 - Jan 19, 2020 - 9:09pm
 
What did you have for dinner? - Antigone - Jan 19, 2020 - 3:56pm
 
A welcome from Poland - mactyt - Jan 19, 2020 - 2:19pm
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - R_P - Jan 19, 2020 - 1:16pm
 
Economix - R_P - Jan 19, 2020 - 12:25pm
 
2020 Elections - buddy - Jan 19, 2020 - 12:23pm
 
Music News - buddy - Jan 19, 2020 - 12:09pm
 
Fix My Car - westslope - Jan 19, 2020 - 11:46am
 
Tartaria And The Mud Floods - buzz - Jan 19, 2020 - 11:02am
 
Movie Recommendation - islander - Jan 19, 2020 - 10:39am
 
Aliens, Aliens! - success - Jan 19, 2020 - 3:52am
 
Anti-War - R_P - Jan 18, 2020 - 8:57pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - KarmaKarma - Jan 18, 2020 - 4:40pm
 
war is a racket - westslope - Jan 18, 2020 - 4:29pm
 
DIY - Red_Dragon - Jan 18, 2020 - 2:26pm
 
Palestine - R_P - Jan 18, 2020 - 11:48am
 
The All-Things Beatles Forum - R_P - Jan 18, 2020 - 11:28am
 
Vinyl vs CD - SeriousLee - Jan 18, 2020 - 10:40am
 
Documentaries - sirdroseph - Jan 18, 2020 - 9:17am
 
Capitalism and Consumerism... now what? - Red_Dragon - Jan 18, 2020 - 7:11am
 
Republican Wingnut Freak of the Day - Red_Dragon - Jan 18, 2020 - 6:28am
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - islander - Jan 18, 2020 - 6:18am
 
UK stream - mike_barr - Jan 18, 2020 - 4:51am
 
Canada - R_P - Jan 17, 2020 - 10:39pm
 
Stream stopping at promo - lannydevaney - Jan 17, 2020 - 7:51pm
 
R&R Hall of Fame Show - buddy - Jan 17, 2020 - 5:53pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » The Conservative War on Christmas Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Post to this Topic
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 12:49pm

 aflanigan wrote:
Fine, you think checkoff programs are incompatible with your free-market principles.  So are subsidies and many other things the government does.  That's not why conservatives are protesting this, is it?

Couldn't care less why conservatives are protesting it, I'm concerned that you think it's worth defending.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 12:04pm

 kurtster wrote:

The ACLU was founded by card carrying communists.

That is reason evough to curse them and be suspicious of everything they do.
 

The USA was founded by slave owners.

That is reason enough to curse the USA and be suspicious of everything it does (right?)
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 11:57am

 Lazy8 wrote:

 

Fine, you think checkoff programs are incompatible with your free-market principles.  So are subsidies and many other things the government does.  That's not why conservatives are protesting this, is it?
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 10:12am

 aflanigan wrote:
I don't think characterizing the fee as "self imposed" is misleading at all.  The idea did not originate with Obama or the USDA but with the trade association representing Xmas tree growers (NCTA).  There was a months long comment period for input from growers, and most seemed to favor it.  And how does a "checkoff" fee imposed only on sales of natural trees force artificial tree makers to pay for it?  Your comment doesn't make sense.

You may feel that such checkoff programs, which have been popular with other produce, are not effective, and that's OK.  Maybe you could lobby for allowing small growers to opt out.  But the bloviators such as Sen. Jim DeMint who are howling and cursing Obama aren't arguing the merits of its effectiveness.  They are using (to borrow your words) "cheap rhetorical tricks" to slam Obama, and potentially harming Christmas Tree farmers just to score cheap political points.

Imagine an industry you're part of had some players active in a trade association (that you may not be a member of, may not agree with, may not even like) and decided they wanted to impose a fee on everybody in the industry to promote a product. If you aren't a member, would you even know about it? Would your first notification be a visit from a USDA enforcement officer three years later handing you a summons for the back taxes you didn't know you were supposed to be paying, plus a fine for non-compliance?

Being given an opportunity to object isn't the same thing as being allowed to opt out, or even vote on it. Or on the people that make the rules—this is an administratively-imposed tax, established by bureaucrats. Smaller players, again, will probably never hear about the hearings until they're over. If the magnanimous concession is made to let people opt out why involve the federal government in the first place? Make the industry fund its own promotion.

The check-off fee may cover the cost of the promotion, but does it cover the cost of collecting the fees, enforcement actions against those who don't cough it up, and administrative overhead? I seriously doubt it. Competitors are funding the USDA thru their taxes. Is the USDA going to create a check-off program to promote artificial christmas trees, or are they paying taxes to support an agency that's trying to put them at a competitive disadvantage?

The federal government is favoring one industry over others, tilting the playing field. This is not what governments are for.

I don't care what Jim DeMint thinks about it. His partisan theatrics don't justify anybody else's.

Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 9:24am

 aflanigan wrote:


...to the extent that the title of this topic and the wording of my original post contained some hyperbole, chalk it up to my lame attempt at satire.

{#Wink}

 
band name

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 9:17am

 Lazy8 wrote:
Your article is quite misleading. This isn't an industry "imposing a fee on itself", which they don't need the USDA taxing tree farmers to do. Industry groups fund this kind of promotional effort themselves all the time. This is an example of crony capitalism.

Every grower, member of the trade group or not, pays this tax and deals with the overhead of accounting for it. The tax is supposed to cover the costs of the program, but I seriously doubt that every penny of administration and overhead at USDA would be. Taxpayers (including manufacturers of competing products) are chipping in to boost sales for one industry.

This program is a triumph of industry lobbying over the common good. Why aren't you outraged by its very existence? And why are you using the kind of cheap rhetorical tricks that you object to elsewhere?
 

I don't think characterizing the fee as "self imposed" is misleading at all.  The idea did not originate with Obama or the USDA but with the trade association representing Xmas tree growers (NCTA).  There was a months long comment period for input from growers, and most seemed to favor it.  And how does a "checkoff" fee imposed only on sales of natural trees force artificial tree makers to pay for it?  Your comment doesn't make sense.

You may feel that such checkoff programs, which have been popular with other produce, are not effective, and that's OK.  Maybe you could lobby for allowing small growers to opt out.  But the bloviators such as Sen. Jim DeMint who are howling and cursing Obama aren't arguing the merits of its effectiveness.  They are using (to borrow your words) "cheap rhetorical tricks" to slam Obama, and potentially harming Christmas Tree farmers just to score cheap political points.

As to your last question, to the extent that the title of this topic and the wording of my original post contained some hyperbole, chalk it up to my lame attempt at satire.

{#Wink}
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:49am

 aflanigan wrote:
Why does the Heritage Foundation hate genuine Christmas Trees so much?

Obama Administration to Delay New 15-Cent Christmas Tree Tax

Bill O'Reilly should be all over this story, any day now . . .

Your article is quite misleading. This isn't an industry "imposing a fee on itself", which they don't need the USDA taxing tree farmers to do. Industry groups fund this kind of promotional effort themselves all the time. This is an example of crony capitalism.

Every grower, member of the trade group or not, pays this tax and deals with the overhead of accounting for it. The tax is supposed to cover the costs of the program, but I seriously doubt that every penny of administration and overhead at USDA would be. Taxpayers (including manufacturers of competing products) are chipping in to boost sales for one industry.

This program is a triumph of industry lobbying over the common good. Why aren't you outraged by its very existence? And why are you using the kind of cheap rhetorical tricks that you object to elsewhere?

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:38am

 aflanigan wrote:


Yes, but my question was for Bill, not you.

 
I'm sorry...Didn't you see my hand up?

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:38am

ah, today's screaming match... buh bye, now.


aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:36am

 hippiechick wrote:

Yes! Every citizen is entitled to legal representation. (Every person, citizen or not?)
 

Yes, but my question was for Bill, not you.
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:36am

 kurtster wrote:

Santa Claus on the government payroll violates the seperation between church and state doesn't it ?

 

So if conservatives suddenly believe in the separation clause, why do they accuse others who object to creches on government property for the same reason of making "war on Christmas"?  Why aren't they leading the war?

This is all too deliciously hypocritical!
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:34am

 aflanigan wrote:


Should Ted Bundy be entitled to legal representation?  Should Fred Phelps?

 
Yes! Every citizen is entitled to legal representation. (Every person, citizen or not?)

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:31am

 Monkeysdad wrote:


Should NAMBLA have ANY rights? The ACLU has gone to bat for them.

 

Should Ted Bundy be entitled to legal representation?  Should Fred Phelps?


aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 8:30am

 Monkeysdad wrote:


Well I know the original post for topic had nothing to do with "conservatives" so I had to ask the question.

 

Actually, it did.  Read the story.  Pressure from the Heritage Foundation and other conservative pundits has derailed an industry-initiated promotional campaign aimed at boosting lagging natural Christmas tree sales.


Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 6:17am

 bokey wrote:

I figure they just learned to keep their agenda quiet.
 
Perhaps, but it's an odd contradiction.  They're an organization which upholds and defends rights granted by the American Constitution - well, in theory.

bokey

bokey Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 6:08am

 Proclivities wrote:

Maybe it's enough for you, but that's a statement from the late 1920's, written by a man who left the ACLU over 60 years ago and died 30 years ago.
 
I figure they just learned to keep their agenda quiet.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 6:06am

 Proclivities wrote:
 kurtster wrote:

The ACLU was founded by card carrying communists.

That is reason evough to curse them and be suspicious of everything they do.

 
I like nostalgia as much as the next guy, but it's 2011, not 1950; "Tail-gunner Joe" is long dead, as is Kruschev.  The ACLU barred communist members in 1940.

 

{#Lol}I was going to say somethng similar, but that is funny!
Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 5:58am

 bokey wrote:

   I think the statement  "Communism is the goal"  is more than enough.
 
Maybe it's enough for you, but that's a statement from the late 1920's, written by a man who left the ACLU over 60 years ago and died 30 years ago.

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 5:56am

 kurtster wrote:

Why ?  It is the truth.
 
For one thing, in 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either.

Second, people as important as Ruth Bade Ginsburg have been involved with the ACLU. And the ACLU does a very important service of protecting everyone's Constitutional rights, no matter how controversial, because that is the purpose of the Constitution.

Third, they are an independent org, receiving almost all their funding from public donations and fees, so they are owned by no one. In fact, they rejected money from certain orgs because they had adopted language from the USA PATRIOT Act in their donation agreements, including a clause stipulating that none of the money would go to "underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities." The ACLU views this clause, both in Federal law and in the donors' agreements, as a threat to civil liberties, saying it is overly broad and ambiguous.

I am a card carrying member, btw.
Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 10, 2011 - 5:56am

 kurtster wrote:

The ACLU was founded by card carrying communists.

That is reason evough to curse them and be suspicious of everything they do.

 
I like nostalgia as much as the next guy, but it's 2011, not 1950; "Tail-gunner Joe" is long dead, as is Kruschev.  The ACLU barred communist members in 1940.

"Communist Party attacks on a Socialist Party rally in Madison Square Garden in 1934 led Norman Thomas and John Haynes Holmes to call for banning Communists from ACLU leadership. In this same decade, the Dies Committee (the House Committee on Un-American Activities, popularly known as HUAC) concluded after its first hearings that one could not say with certainty whether or not the ACLU was a Communist organization. The ACLU responded by leading efforts to abolish the Dies Committee, assigning Abraham Isserman to write the first systematic analysis of the rights of witnesses before investigative committees (a report which Baldwin suppressed, perhaps in an agreement with HUAC) and working to clear the ACLU name. HUAC raids beginning in 1939, passage of the Smith Act in 1940 and state laws banning the Communist Party from the ballot served to increase concern about totalitarian organizations. In response to these growing concerns, the ACLU in 1940 adopted a policy barring Communist Party members from official positions in the organization, leading to the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from the board and to the resignations of several others, including Harry Ward."

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next